9T5. 

BJD221 


Danielson,    J.   A. 

Lincoln's  attitude   towards 
Prohi  bi  ti  on 


LINCOLN  ROOM 

UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS 
LIBRARY 


MEMORIAL 

the  Class  of  1901 

founded  by 

HARLAN  HOYT  HORNER 

and 

HENRIETTA  CALHOUN  HORNER 


o, 


LINCOLN'S 

ATTITUDE  TOWARDS 

PROHIBITION 

"By 
J.  A.  DANIELSON 


THE  FIRST  EXTENSIVE  TREATISE 
FROM  DOCUMENTARY  SOURCES 
ON  ABRAHAM  LINCOLN'S  VIEWS 

LIBRARY 

Lincoln  Memorial  University 
Harrepfc.  Tenm 


"74-1 


/ 


Copyright,  1927 

J.  A.  DANIELSON 

18  West  25th  Street,  New  York,  N.  Y. 


&*»# 


Published,  April,  1927 


Printing  by  Barnes  Press,  Inc.,  New  York 


Lincoln's  Attitude  on  Prohibition 


This  is  the  fifth  of  a  series  of  discourses  on  the  general 
topic  of  Prohibition,  and  is  devoted  wholly  to  a  considera- 
tion of  Lincoln's  viezvs,  as  contained  in  the  accepted 
biographies  and  official  documents,  as  well  as  authentic 
records  of  his  public  utterances. 

By  J.  A.  Danielson 

THIS  is  a  question  that  now  interests  a  great  number  of  people: 
What  was  Abraham   Lincoln's   attitude   towards   Prohibition? 

It  is  only  fair  to  the  memory  and  to  a  proper  estimate  of  this  great 
American  to  assume  that,  if  he  were  alive  today  his  attitude  towards  the 
prohibition  theory  would  remain  what  it  was.  A  frail  grasp  on  Lincoln, 
indeed,  has  the  person  who  thinks  that  he  lacked  the  intelligence  to  form  an 
opinion  that  would  stand  after  the  theory's  application  to  practical  life.  If 
Lincoln  favored  prohibition  then,  let  us  admit  that  he  would  also  favor  it 
today,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  if  he  did  NOT  favor  this  theory  then,  let  us 
likewise  admit  that  he  would  not  favor  it  were  he  alive  today. 

If  his  opinion  on  this  question  is  valuable,  it  is  so  because  of  his  foresight 
and  his  ability  to  recognize  the  underlying  principles  of  this  law,  and  thus  to 
know  whether  these  principles,  in  application,  work  for  the  welfare  of  the 
nation  or  to  its  detriment.  If  his  opinion  on  this  question  justifies  the  ado 
and  the  controversy  that  is  now  going  on,  it  is  because  it  shows  that  he  antici- 
pated this  law's  effect  upon  society — not  for  any  particular  time,  but  for  all 
time — as  in  his  day  it  had  not  been  sufficiently  tried  in  this  country  to  enable 
him  to  base  an  estimate  upon  actual  experience  with  it.  The  value  of  his 
opinion  to  us  today,  therefore,  lies  in  its  prophetic  correctness  in  the  light  of 
our  experience  with  this  law. 

The  sharp  division  of  opinion  between  prohibitionists  and  anti-prohibition- 
ists, and  propaganda  by  newspaper  articles,  pamphlets  and  books — calculated 
to  throw  in  the  influence  of  Lincoln  on  one  side  or  the  other — now  call  for 
the  indisputable  facts  that  bear  on  this  so  persistently  recurring  question. 
Since  this  law  was  enacted — about  seven  years  ago — at  least  a  half  score  of 
books  have  been  published  in  this  country,  besides  innumerable  newspaper 
and  magazine  articles,  to  prove  that  Abraham  Lincoln  was  a  prohibitionist. 
Not  so  much  has  been  done  to  counteract  that  propaganda.  To  definitely 
close  this  controversy  does  not  require  voluminous  writing.  It  should  suffice 
to  point  out  just  a  few  facts,  and,  these  facts  generally  known,  this  question 
should  be  settled  for  all  time. 

xx    xx    n 

AT  some  time  in  his  career,  Lincoln  is  believed  to  have  made  a  definite 
declaration  against  prohibition,  and  over  the  words  he  is  alleged  to 
have  uttered  upon  that  occasion  there  will  likely  continue  to  be  doubt  and 
controversy.     The  statement  is  challenged  by  prohibitionists  and  treasured 


4  CONTROVERSY  OVER  FAMOUS  QUOTATION 

by  those  who  are  opposed  to  that  theory.  The  issue  as  to  its  genuineness 
seems  incapable  of  being  definitely  settled.  Since  the  revival  of  prohibition 
in  this  country,  this  famous  declaration  has  often  been  referred  to.  If  it 
is  genuine,  his  attitude  towards  this  law  is  clear  by  this  statement  alone,  but 
there  seems  to  be  no  way  of  ascertaining,  beyond  doubt,  whether  these  words 
actually  ever  crossed  Lincoln's  lips. 

This  is  the  statement  in  question : 

"Prohibition  zvill  work  great  injury  to  the  cause  of  temperance.  It  is  a 
species  of  intemperance  within  itself,  for  it  goes  beyond  the  bounds  of  reason 
in  that  it  attempts  to  control  a  man's  appetite  by  legislation,  and  in  making 
crimes  out  of  things  that  are  not  crime.  A  prohibition  law  strikes  a  bloiv 
at  the  very  principle  on  which  our  government  is  founded.  I  never  can  give 
my  consent  to  such  a  law.  Until  my  tongue  shall  be  silenced  in  death  I  will 
continue  to  fight  for  the  rights  of  men." 

Since  employing  this  quotation  in  a  discourse  prepared  some  time  ago, 
protests  and  challenges  to  prove  it  authentic  have  been  numerous,  and  many 
of  them  very  bitter.  It  may  be  difficult  to  "prove"  that  Lincoln  made  this 
statement,  but  it  is  a  fact  that  it  has  been  extensively  quoted  as  being  his 
words.  There  are  few  persons  now  living  who  might  have  heard  the  words 
uttered,  and — in  the  absence  of  official  sources — any  claim  that  they  represent 
his  sentiments  can  have  no  better  basis  than  the  record  of  his  views  on  the 
liquor  question.  If  we  can  ascertain  just  what  these  views  were,  this  is  of 
far  more  significance  than  conclusions  we  may  come  to  by  debating  fine  points 
in  the  controversy  as  to  the  authenticity  of  this  particular  quotation. 

0     0     0 

IF  there  had  been  any  doubt  about  the  genuineness  of  this  declaration  it 
would  not  have  been  employed,  even  though  the  sentiments  expressed  har- 
monize with  Lincoln's  attitude  towards  prohibition — as  judged  by  his  private 
as  well  as  his  public  life.  There  should  be  no  desire  to  use  statements  in 
regard  to  which  there  may  be  doubt  as  to  the  true  source,  neither  is  there  a 
shortage  of  arguments,  such  as  to  necessitate  using  questionable  tactics. 

My  first  acquaintance  with  this  quotation  came  several  years  ago.  Accord- 
ing to  my  recollection  I  read  it  for  the  first  time  in  the  Overland  Magazine, 
and  have  since  referred  to  that  publication.  It  may  be  found  in  volume  53, 
page  428,  with  the  words,  "as  you  propose  to  enact,"  concluding  the  sen- 
tence :  "I  never  can  give  my  consent  to  such  a  law,"  indicating  that  the 
declaration  was  made  at  a  time  when  Lincoln  was  called  upon  to  explain  his 
vote  or  his  stand  against  prohibition. 

The  Overland  Magazine  is  a  high-class  publication,  established  in  1868 
by  Bret  Harte,  and  has  been  published  regularly  ever  since.  Bound  volumes 
are  on  file  in  numerous  libraries  in  this  country.  The  New  York  Library 
has  it  in  bound  form  for  the  fifty-eight  years  of  the  magazine's  existence. 

The  article  in  which  the  Lincoln  quotation  occurs  in  this  magazine  was 
prepared  by  Hartwell  J.  Davis,  in  connection  with  a  discussion  of  prohibition 
during  the  summer  of  1909,  between  President  Gilmore  of  the  Model  License 
League  and  Francis  H.  Robinson.  Mr.  Davis  contributed  a  signed  article  in 
which  the  quotation  is  referred  to,  as  used  by  Cardinal  Gibbons.  When  the 
Cardinal  pointed  to  these  words,  as  expressing  Lincoln's  opposition  to  such 
a  law,  it  is  certain  that  he  did  not  do  so  upon  mere  hearsay,  but  that  he  could 
successfully   meet   any   challenge   that   Lincoln    had   actually   uttered   them. 


DOCUMENTARY  EVIDENCE  VS.  HEARSAY 


Among  other  prominent  men  quoted  in  the  same  discussion  were  Herbert 
Spencer,  Tobias  George  Smollett,  Phillips  Brooks,  Charles  W.  Eliot  and 
Oliver  Wendell  Holmes.  There  seems  to  have  been  no  doubt  or  controversy 
over  it  at  that  time.  It  is  only  in  recent  years  that  its  genuineness  has  been 
seriously  challenged. 

Perhaps  it  is  unwise  to  argue  whether  Lincoln  used  these  exact  words.  It 
might  seem  that  the  whole  thing  depends  upon  it — which  is  not  the  case. 
There  is  so  much  to  indicate  that  he  was  opposed  to  such  a  law  that  it  is 
folly  to  let  this  brief  quotation  become  a  source  of  controversy.  We  can  well 
afford  to  forget  this  declaration,  because  it  is,  after  all,  only  one  of  many 
things  pointing  decisively  to  his  opposition  to  the  prohibition  theory.  Persons 
have  been  led  to  judge  Lincoln's  true  attitude  on  prohibition  mainly  by  this 
utterance,  whereas  there  are  many  other  instances,  of  equal  or  greater  impor- 
tance, over  which  there  can  not  be  any  dispute.  The  trouble  is  that  these 
facts  have  never  been  given  the  publicity  their  significance  deserves.  Person- 
ally, I  have  never  felt  just  right  about  using  this  quotation,  because  it  seems 
impossible  to  ascertain  the  exact  time,  place  and  circumstances  when  it  was 
given  expression.  I  knew  of  it  for  years  before  employing  it ;  in  the  mean- 
time searching  persistently  to  determine  if  it  is  genuine,  but  succeeded  in 
tracing  it  back  only  about  forty  years.  We  can  give  the  prohibitionists  all 
the  benefit  of  the  doubt,  and  forget  about  it,  for  the  reason  already  stated, 
that  there  are  many  things  in  Lincoln's  life  which  show  unmistakably  his 
attitude  towards  prohibition.  My  aim  in  this  discourse,  which  is  especially 
prepared  to  meet  the  challenges  received  after  referring  to  these  much 
debated  words,  is  to  bring  out  the  facts  about  Lincoln — what  he  said  and  did, 
on  which  there  can  be  no  doubt  or  dispute  as  to  authenticity.  When  we  have 
viewed  the  evidence  in  the  case,  as  contained  in  official  documents  and  recog- 
nized biographical  works,  we  shall  find  Lincoln  where  all  true  Americans 
would  expect  to  find  him. 

H     0     XX 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN  was  a  member  of  the  Illinois  Legislature  for 
eight  years — from  1834  until  1842.  What  he  thought  about  the 
prohibition  idea  is  sufficiently  well  disclosed  by  his  vote  on  several  occasions 
during  that  period,  to  satisfy  the  most  skeptical.  No  hearsay  need  be  de- 
pended upon.  His  vote  against  prohibition,  being  recorded  in  the  Journal 
of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the  Illinois  Legislature,  can  easily  be 
confirmed  from  these  official  sources.  It  will  suffice  at  this  time  to  mention 
two  outstanding  occasions  when  he  cast  his  votes  against  prohibition  bills 
which  came  before  the  Legislature  while  he  was  a  mem(ber  of  that  body. 
Being  a  man  of  strict  temperance — if  not  a  total  abstainer — it  may  reasonably 
be  expected  that  he  offered  an  explanation  for  his  negative  votes  on  these 
measures,  and  the  opinion  naturally  prevails  that  it  was  at  such  a  time  he 
uttered  these  words,  in  support  of  his  stand.  Unfortunately,  the  House 
Journal  of  Illinois,  like  that  of  other  States,  does  not  contain  any  record 
of  debate  on  any  measure  under  consideration,  but  is  a  "journal"  in  the  tech- 
nical meaning  of  the  word.  The  report  that  the  quotation  in  question  may 
be  found  in  the  Illinois  House  Journal  may,  therefore,  be  set  down  as  false, 
and  should  be  checked. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  rely  on  tradition,  when  official  documents  contain 
what  we  want  to  know.  On  December  26,  1839,  the  Illinois  House  of  Repre- 
sentatives, the   Eleventh   General   Assembly  of   the   Legislature — record   of 


LINCOLN'S  VOTE  ON   PROHIBITION   BILLS 


which  is  found  on  page  86  of  the  Journal — there  was  under  consideration 
"An  Act  for  Regulating  Tavern  and  Grocery  Licenses,"  at  which  time  a 
Mr.  Walker  of  Vermillion  proposed  a  local  option  measure,  as  follows: 

"That  if  a  majority  of  the  qualified  voters  of  the  Incorporated  Towns,  Justice 
District,  or  Ward  of  any  City  in  which  said  grocery  is  to  be  licensed,  shall 
remonstrate  against  the  granting  of  such  licenses,  the  same  shall  not  be 
granted." 

Abraham  Lincoln  is  recorded  as  having  voted  against  this  bill,  which  act 
can  be  interpreted  only  in  the  light  that  he  took  a  fundamental  view  of  the 
matter,  and  that  he  regarded  the  question  of  a  person's  right  to  use  liquor — 
if  he  desires  to  use  it — as  "exclusively  his  own  business,"  and  as  something 
strictly  outside  the  jurisdiction  of  even  the  majority  of  the  voters  in  any  given 
locality.  The  reason  for  putting  this  meaning  upon  his  vote  will  be  made 
plain  later  in  this  discourse.  It  is  evident  that  he  did  not  believe  in  the  prin- 
ciple of  entrusting  our  God-given  rights  and  liberties  to  a  fanatic  majority. 
Lincoln  may  well  be  regarded  as  having  personally  killed  this  budding  pro- 
hibition measure,  as  this  bill  was  defeated  by  one  vote. 

Another  instance  of  at  least  equal  importance.  In  the  Journal  of  the 
House  of  Representatives  of  the  Twelfth  General  Assembly  of  the  Illinois 
Legislature,  under  date  of  December  19,  1840 — recorded  on  page  136  of  the 
Journal — may  be  learned  the  fate  of  another  bill  to  prohibit  the  sale  of 
liquor,  also  called  "An  Act  to  Regulate  Tavern  and  Grocery  Licenses."  A 
Mr.  Murphy  of  Cook  (Chicago)  moved  to  strike  portions  of  the  bill  and 
insert  the  following: 

"That  after  the  passage  of  this  Act,  no  person  shall  be  licensed  to  sell  vinous 
or  spirituous  liquors  in  this  State,  and  that  any  person  who  violates  this  Act 
by  selling  such  liquors  shall  be  fined  in  the  sum  of  one  thousand  dollars,  to  be 
recovered  before  any  court  having  competent  jurisdiction." 

This  clause,  which  became  known  as  the  "Murphy  State-wide  Prohibition 
Proposal,"  was  defeated  by  a  vote  of  75  to  8,  with  Abraham  Lincoln 
recorded  in  the  Journal  of  the  House  of  Representatives  as  having  moved 
to  "lay  it  on  the  table" — the  polite  way  of  killing  a  bill — and  also  listed  as 
having  voted  against  it. 

The  Murphy  Prohibition  Bill,  if  passed,  would  have  been  the  first 
prohibition  law  to  be  adopted  by  any  State  in  the  Union,  and  Abraham 
Lincoln  was  instrumental  in  its  defeat. 

Lincoln  was  a  young  man  at  this  time,  and  this  is  the  way  he  began.  We 
shall  now  proceed  to  observe  other  instances  of  equally  great  significance 
in  ascertaining  what  was  his  true  attitude  towards  prohibition,  tracing  his 
career  for  further  interesting  and  important  evidence. 

ft       0       0 

ABRAHAM  LINCOLN  was  an  advocate  of  TEMPERANCE,  but  not 
of  PROHIBITION.  The  "temperance"  advocate  of  that  day  was 
one  who  favored  "habitual  moderation,"  and  he  was  very  rarely  confused 
with  the  "prohibitionist,"  as  is  often  the  case  today.  The  address  he  deliv- 
ered before  the  Washingtonian  Society  at  Springfield  in  1842  is  one  of  the 
finest  and  most  convincing  TEMPERANCE  lectures  ever  given  by  anyone. 
It  is  frequently  referred  to  by  prohibitionists,  as  containing  evidence  that 
Lincoln  was  opposed  to  all  use  of  liquor  and  in  favor  of  its  abolition  by  law, 
which  is  a  most  erroneous  interpretation.  He  was  aware  of  the  danger  of 
strong  drink  in  the  hands  of   weak-minded  people.     He  granted   that  the 


«3[j  jms<xmfi  TqtKtnr 

AIM  OF  THE  WASHINGTONIAN   SOCIETY 


improper  use  of  liquor  was  a  prolific  source  of  evil,  and  he  was  severe  in  his 
condemnation  of  what  he  termed  the  "ruinous  effects  of  intemperance." 
Prohibition  was  not  mentioned,  however,  nor  did  he  recommend  the  applica- 
tion of  any  kind  of  law  calling  force  into  action.  In  fact,  he  warned  against 
such  methods  of  dealing  with  a  practice,  which,  except  in  the  abuse,  is 
"exclusively  one's  own  business."  Pointing  to  this  address  as  evidence  of 
Lincoln's  approval  of  the  principle  of  prohibition  is  highly  deceptive  propa- 
ganda. The  address  is  a  powerful  plea  for  moderation  in  the  use  of  liquor, 
and  that  is  as  far  as  Lincoln  ever  went.  It  should  be  read  in  its  entirety 
by  people  both  for  and  against  the  prohibition  law.  And  those  who  have 
been  given  the  impression  that  it  contains  any  declaration  in  favor  of  this 
law  should  ponder  with  care  the  following  three  paragraphs : 

"Too  much  denunciation  against  the  dram-drinker  and  the  dram-seller  has 
been  indulged  in.  This,  I  think,  is  both  impolitic  and  unjust.  It  is  impolitic 
because  it  is  not  much  in  the  nature  of  man  to  be  driven  to  anything;  still 
less  to  be  driven  about  that  which  is  exclusively  his  own  business;  and,  least 
of  all,  where  such  driving  is  to  be  submitted  to  at  the  expense  of  pecuniary 
interest  or  burning  appetite. 

"When  the  dram-seller  and  the  drinker  were  incessantly  told — not  in 
accents  of  entreaty  and  persuasion,  diffidently  addressed  by  erring  man  to 
erring  brother,  but  in  the  thundering  tones  of  anathema  and  denunciation 
with  which  the  lordly  judge  often  groups  together  all  the  crimes  of  the 
felon's  life,  and  thrusts  them  in  his  face  ere  he  passes  sentence  of  death  upon 
him — that  they  were  the  authors  of  all  the  vice  and  misery  and  crime  in  the 
land;  that  they  were  the  manufacturers  and  the  material  of  all  the  thieves 
and  robbers  and  murderers  that  infest  the  earth;  that  their  houses  were  the 
workshops  of  the  devil,  and  that  their  persons  should  be  shunned  by  all  the 
good  and  virtuous,  as  moral  pestilences — /  say,  when  they  were  told  all  this, 
and  in  this  way,  it  is  not  zvonderful  that  they  are  slozv,  very  slozv,  to  acknowl- 
edge the  truth  of  such  denunciations,  and  to  join  the  ranks  of  the  denouncers 
in  a  hue  and  cry  against  themselves. 

"When  the  conduct  of  men  is  designed  to  be  influenced,  persuasion — kind, 
unassuming  persuasion — should  always  be  adopted." 

Habitual  drunkards  were  never  more  than  a  fraction  of  one  per  cent,  of 
those  using  liquor,  and  the  "wife-beaters"  less  than  one  per  cent.,  again,  of 
that  fraction.  Still  anti-liquor  zealotry  has  shouted  so  loud  and  so  long 
about  that  fraction  of  a  part  of  one  per  cent,  until  people  have  come  to  believe 
that  men  who  use  liquor  are  generally  wife-beaters.  Lincoln  became  impa- 
tient with  the  exaggerations  and  the  hysteria  which  marked  the  professional 
reformers  of  that  day — and  which  has  not  noticeably  abated  to  this  moment — 
and  he  was  keen  in  his  criticism  and  ridicule  of  the  entire  class  that  can  see 
in  a  sparkling  glass  nothing  but  "rum-power,"  cruelty'  and  empty  cupboards. 

XX      XX      XX 

SUCH  was  the  method  of  Lincoln,  in  dealing  with  a  situation  which  was 
also  then  one  of  the  most  perplexing  of  social  problems.  What  a  contrast 
to  the  prohibitionists'  method  of  denunciation,  so  common  yet  today!  It 
might  be  well  to  call  attention  at  this  point  to  the  fact  that  the  Washingtonian 
Society  was  an  organization  for  the  promotion  of  Temperance,  and  opposed 
to  the  crude  and  impractical  plan  of  prohibition  dreamers.  Lincoln  called 
the  prohibitionists  "theorizers,"  and  bewailed  the  spirit  of  intolerance  and 


8  THE  "GREAT  HIGH-ROAD"  TO  REASON 

bitterness  that  constituted  their  driving  force.  That  deplorable  bitterness 
still  prevails,  and  is  unfortunately  often  rekindled  from  the  pulpits.  It  is 
being  perpetuated  by  such  typical  prohibitionists  as  the  Rev.  William  A. 
(Billy)  Sunday,  who  declares  in  his  sermons  that  he  is  going  to  make  the 
United  States  "so  dry  that  you'll  have  to  prime  a  man  twice  before  he  can 
spit" — a  favorite  expression  of  that  outstanding-  so-called  reformer  and 
Christian  gentleman.  And  his  disgusting  language  is  not  near  as  bad  as  the 
temper  in  which  he  utters  those  words,  at  that.  Surely,  other  influences 
than  those  of  the  Humble  Nazarene,  or  of  such  men  as  Abraham  Lincoln, 
are  responsible  for  such  a  state  of  mind. 

Contrast  for  a  moment  the  frenzied  tirades  of  the  perspiring,  arm-waving 
evangelists  of  today — with  tongues  far  more  intemperate  than  throats  ever 
were — thundering  from  pulpit  and  platform,  with  the  following  mild  words 
by  Abraham  Lincoln,  forming  a  part  of  his  address  to  the  Washingtonian 
Society,  delivered  eighty- four  years  ago : 

"If  you  would  win  a  man  to  your  cause,  first  convince  him  that  you  are 
his  sincere  friend.  Therein  is  a  drop  of  honey  that  catches  his  heart,  which, 
say  what  he  will,  is  the  great  high-road  to  his  reason,  and  which,  when  once 
gained,  you  will  find  but  little  trouble  in  convincing  his  judgment  of  the 
justice  of  your  cause,  if,  indeed,  that  cause  really  be  a  just  one.  On  the 
contrary,  assume  to  dictate  to  Jits  judgment,  or  to  command  his  action,  or  to 
mark  him  as  one  to  be  shunned  and  despised,  and  he  will  retreat  within 
himself,  close  all  the  avenues  of  his  head  and  his  heart,  and  though  your 
cause  be  naked  truth  itself,  transformed  to  the  heaviest  steel,  and  sharper 
than  steel  can  be  made,  and  though  you  throw  it  with  more  than  herculean 
force  and  precision,  you  shall  be  no  more  able  to  pierce  him  than  to  penetrate 
the  hard  shell  of  a  tortoise  with  a  rye-straw. 

"Such  is  man,  and  so  must  he  be  understood  by  those  who  would  lead  him, 
even  to  his  ozvn  best  interests." 

The  Washington  Society,  it  is  evident,  sought  "the  reformation  of  inebri- 
ates," recognizing  the  distinction  between  drunkards  and  temperate  users  of 
liquor.  While  it  may  have  welcomed  total  abstinence  pledges  from  anyone, 
it  solicited  such  pledges  only  from  those  so  addicted  to  drink  that  it  had 
become  their  personal  enemy.  Its  mission  was  to  "heal  the  sick,  not  the  well." 
Abraham  Lincoln  congratulated  the  Society  upon  this  fact,  praising  in 
eloquent  language  the  change  from  the  theorizers'  tactics  of  "denunciation," 
to  the  "erring  man  to  erring  brother"  course  of  procedure.  He  approved, 
he  assured  the  members  of  the  Society,  of  the  methods  of  dealing  with 
"those  whom  they  desire  to  convince,"  not  any  longer  as  "demons,  nor  the 
worst  of  men,"  but  as  their  "old  friends  and  companions."  In  speaking  of 
the  Washingtonians  who  made  up  this  Society,  Lincoln  also  said :  "They  are 
practical  philanthropists,  and  they  glow  with  a  generous  and  brotherly  zeal, 
that  mere  theorizers  are  incapable  of  feeling.  Benevolence  and  charity 
possess  their  hearts;  and  out  of  their  hearts  their  tongues  give  utterance. 
'Love  through  all  their  actions  runs,  and  all  their  words  are  mild.'  In  this 
spirit  they  speak  and  act,  and  in  the  same  they  are  heard  and  regarded.  And 
when  such  is  the  temper  of  the  advocate,  and  such  of  the  audience,  no  good 
cause  can  be  unsuccessful." 

The  Society  was  not  devoted  to  a  general  condemnation  of  all  use  of  liquor, 
but  was  moderate  in  its  aim  as  it  was  tolerant  in  its  attitude.  This  may  also 
be  seen  by  the  records  that  have  come  down  to  our  day.     The  annual  report 


THE  1855  PROHIBITION  REFERENDUM 


of  the  New  Haven  branch,  for  example — dated  June  22,  1842,  just  a  year 
after  its  organization — states  that  "the  Society  has  held  sixty  public  meetings, 
most  of  which  have  been  held  in  the  Exchange  saloon."  The  Washington 
Temperance  Society,  by  the  way,  had  its  origin  in  a  bar-room — the  Chase 
Tavern  in  Baltimore.  It  was  named  in  honor  of  George  Washington,  who 
"always  drank,  but  was  never  drunk,"  and  it  was  patterned  after  his  views 
on  temperance.  As  the  years  went  by,  however,  a  bigoted,  destructive  element 
worked  itself  in,  which  would  have  nothing  less  than  total  abstinence  and 
prohibition  for  the  temperate  as  well  as  for  the  intemperate,  with  the  result 
that  dissension,  hatred  and  double-dealing — which  prohibition  always  engen- 
ders— ultimately  destroyed  the  Society  from  which  Lincoln  had  expected  so 
much,  and  the  aim  of  which  he  had  highly  extolled. 

Neither  the  Anti-Saloon  League,  nor  any  other  organization  defending 
the  prohibition  law,  has  yet  circulated  Lincoln's  Temperance  address,  except 
where  it  is  hidden  in  the  appendix  of  one  or  two  of  the  books  they  sell. 
The  reason  for  withholding  this  address  from  the  public  may  be  found  in 
the  parts  I  have  referred  to.  The  League  distributes  tracts  quoting  him  in 
garbled  form,  with  these  parts  omitted,  but  to  circulate  what  he  actually  said 
— his  Washingtonian  address  in  its  entirety  and  in  its  proper  light — would 
be  damaging  to  prohibition.  The  temperament  of  "theorizers"  is  nowhere 
better  analyzed  than  in  that  address,  nor  their  whims  more  scathingly  rebuked. 
Fine  temperance  address  that  it  is,  it  is  an  equally  fine  anti-prohibition 
address.  Read  it  and  have  your  friends  read  it !  It  will  drive  away  any 
false  impression  that  Lincoln  approved  of  prohibition,  and  prove  that  he 
was  an  advocate  of  TEMPERANCE,  par  excellence.  Perhaps  nowhere  has 
the  future,  as  regards  the  elimination  of  the  evils  of  intemperance,  been  more 
optimistically  portrayed,  nor  the  fallacy  of  sumptuary  laws  given  a  more 
stinging  disapproval,  than  in  this  marvelous  address  by  Abraham  Lincoln. 

XX      XX      XX 

THE  controversy  over  the  authenticity  of  the  Lincoln  quotation  already 
referred  to  in  this  discourse  is  now  about  to  be  outdone  by  another — 
whether  Lincoln  took  part  in  the  prohibition  campaign  in  the  State  of 
Illinois,  in  the  spring  and  early  summer  of  1855.  At  least  a  half  score  of 
books  have  been  published  in  recent  years,  designed  to  identify  him  with 
that  campaign — held  seventy-one  years  ago.  To  check  that  deception  there 
has  been  next  to  nothing  in  print.  The  truth,  it  seems,  has  been  left  to  defend 
itself.  It  will  be  possible  to  consider  only  a  few  of  these  books  at  this  time — 
the  more  important  ones. 

A  fair  example  of  this  misleading  literature  is  contained  in  the  quite  recent 
work  by  Charles  T.  White,  "Lincoln  and  Prohibition."  This  book  was 
copyrighted  in  1921.  Its  author  advances  the  idea  that  Lincoln  took  part 
in  the  campaign  for  prohibition  in  Illinois,  also  that  he  drafted  the  proposed 
law,  but  there  is  compensation  in  the  fact  that  he  has  frankly  stated  what 
has  been  the  source  of  his  newly  acquired  knowledge.  This  leaves  one  to 
draw  his  own  conclusions,  which  is  fair  enough.  "Investigators  only  recently," 
he  admits,  "came  to  an  agreement  that  Abraham  Lincoln  wrote  the  1855 
prohibition  law."  He  fails  to  reveal  who  the  "investigators"  were,  which 
creates  a  suspicion  they  may  have  been  hand-picked  prohibitionists.  The 
investigators  came  to  an  "agreement,"  he  confesses.  Of  course  it  would  have 
been  difficult,  with  the  evidence  at  hand,  to  come  to  anything  like  a  "conclu- 
sion."    He  offers  as  his  best  evidence  for  this  statement,  that,  at  some  time 


10  HISTORY   OF   ILLINOIS   GIVES   FACTS 


prior  to  1855  Lincoln  had  walked  six  miles  on  a  hot  day  to  make  a  "temper- 
ance speech."  Any  man  who  walks  six  miles  or  more  on  a  hot  day  to  make 
a  temperance  speech,  is,  in  Mr.  White's  opinion,  a  prohibitionist  beyond  a 
doubt.  There  is  as  much  reason  to  say  that  a  person  who  makes  a  Republican 
speech  is  a  Democrat,  or  vice  versa,  as  in  Lincoln's  time  "temperance"  and 
"prohibition"  represented  two  distinctly  opposite  camps.  However,  the  lack 
of  documentary  evidence  to  sustain  the  claim  that  Lincoln  took  part  in  that 
campaign  appears  to  have  given  Mr.  White  at  least  a  moment's  worry.  He 
anticipated,  naturally,  that  biographers  would  object  to  the  assertion  that 
Lincoln  took  any  such  part,  but  he  has  dismissed  this  fear  in  the  following 
extraordinary  logic : 

"Documentary  proof,"  he  points  out,  "is  not  the  only  answer  to  any  query 
raised.  The  burden  of  proof  inevitably  will  be  upon  those  who  contend  that 
Lincoln  did  NOT  take  a  leading  part  in  the  campaign." 

Weak  as  that  defense  really  is,  Mr.  White  has  there  stated  the  whole  case 
for  those  who  contend  that  Lincoln  took  part  in  that  campaign,  and  that 
Lincoln  might  in  any  sense  be  called  a  prohibitionist.  It  simply  says  that — 
documentary  and  all  other  evidence  lacking — defense  must  be  sought  in 
throwing  out  the  challenge  to  disprove  their  claims.  Prohibitionists  harshly 
criticise  the  use  of  the  Lincoln  quotation  against  prohibition,  on  the  ground 
that  it  lacks  sufficient  proof  as  to  its  genuineness,  but  as  to  Mr.  White's  logic 
— which  would  give  us  a  clear  title  to  that  quotation — we  hear  no  protest. 
According  to  Mr.  White,  an  assertion,  however  wild,  is  historic  fact  until  it 
is  scientifically  disproved.  Such  a  process  of  reasoning,  it  is  to  be  hoped,  does 
not  meet  with  the  approval  of  more  than  a  very  small  percentage  of  the  pro- 
hibitionists themselves,  regardless  of  where  the  conclusions  place  Lincoln  on 
this  issue. 

Now  let  us  see  what  a  recognized  history  says.  The  History  of  Illinois 
by  Davidson  and  Stuve,  a  work  that  is  generally  regarded  as  authentic — 
whose  authors  even  favor  the  prohibition  theory — give  a  fair  account  of  the 
referendum  campaign  of  1855.  They  say  that  this  law  was  drafted  by  the 
Honorable  B.  S.  Edwards,  "an  eminent  lawyer,"  who  was  not  only  the  author 
of  the  proposed  bill,  but  its  "principal  champion."  Abraham  Lincoln  was 
at  that  time  residing  in  Springfield,  pursuing  his  law  practice  and  devoting 
his  spare  time  to  his  candidacy  for  the  United  States  Senate.  The  fact 
should  not  be  overlooked,  that  he  was  then  a  national  figure,  and  throughout 
the  State  of  Illinois  his  activity  was  watched  and  reported  in  the  newspapers 
of  the  day.  If  he  had  taken  any  part  in  the  campaign,  the  History  of  Illinois 
would  contain  some  mention  of  it,  and  it  would  then  have  been  absurd  for 
the  historians,  Davidson  and  Stuve,  to  say  that  Mr.  Edwards  was  its  "prin- 
cipal champion."  It  must  be  assumed  that  the  authors  of  this  work  would 
hesitate  to  identify  Lincoln  with  this  campaign,  as  the  facts  did  not  justify  it. 
Making  such  claims  would  have  marred  the  integrity  of  their  entire  work. 
It  likely  never  occurred  to  them  to  do  so,  staunch  prohibitionists  as  they 
might  have  been.  If  they  had  not  mentioned  the  campaign  at  all,  the  fact 
that  they  did  not  identify  Lincoln  with  it  might  be  regarded  as  an  oversight, 
but  reference  to  this  work  will  show  that  they  went  extensively  into  its  history 
and  stated  definitely  its  details. 

XX      XX      XX 

MANY  new  "authorities"  on  the  life  of  Abraham  Lincoln  have  appeared 
on  the  horizon  in  recent  years,  particularly  since  prohibition  gained  a 
foothold  in  our  country.     New  yarns  about  him  seem  to  be  spun  daily.     He 


PROHIBITIONISTS  CALLED  "THEORIZERS"  H 

is  being  quoted  and  misquoted  on  all  conceivable  subjects.  There  is  enough 
hearsay  about  him  to  fill  a  good-sized  library.  The  recent  work,  "Latest 
Light  on  Abraham  Lincoln,"  by  the  Rev.  Ervin  Chapman — a  voluminous 
book  of  nearly  six  hundred  pages — proclaims  Lincoln  to  be  the  founder  of 
the  prohibition  movement.  A  perusal  of  its  pages  reveals  that  the  author's 
main  desire  is  to  make  Lincoln  appear  to  have  been  a  valiant  champion  of 
prohibition.  Mr.  Chapman  offers  no  evidence,  but  an  abundance  of  claims. 
Here  is  one  of  his  numerous  assertions : 

"It  is  a  very  defective  and  misleading  history  of  Abraham  Lincoln  that 
does  not  contain  the  information  that  he  was  AN  ARDENT  PROHIBI- 
TIONIST," and  that  he  belonged  to  the  class  of  reformers  "who  believe  in 
the  enactment  and  enforcement  of  laws  forbidding  the  manufacture,  impor- 
tation and  sale  of  all  alcoholic  liquors  for  beverage  purposes." 

The  Rev.  Chapman's  work  is  unreliable  and  misleading  in  major  as  well 
as  minor  conclusions.  In  dealing  with  the  campaign  in  Illinois  in  1855,  which 
resulted  in  the  defeat  of  the  prohibition  proposal,  Mr.  Chapman  makes  the 
following  comment :  "With  the  result  of  the  election  Mr.  Lincoln  was  sorely 
disappointed,  especially  the  defeat  of  the  prohibition  law." 

Mr.  Chapman  was  evidently  not  well  informed  on  his  subject  when  he 
wrote  this  book,  containing  as  it  does,  repeated  mis-statement  of  facts.  The 
words  just  quoted  indicate  also  that  the  author  had  but  a  cursory  knowledge 
of  the  history  of  the  prohibition  referendum  campaign,  on  which  he  has 
written  with  such  feigned  authority.  He  tells  of  Lincoln's  disappointment 
with  the  election,  "especially  the  defeat  of  the  prohibition  law,"  while,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  there  was  no  election  at  all.  No  offices  were  at  stake  in  that 
campaign,  and  no  other  issue  involved.  The  Illinois  Legislature  had  passed 
a  prohibition  bill  a  few  months  prior  to  that  time,  which  was  to  go  into  effect 
only  if  approved  by  the  people  in  a  State-wide  referendum.  How  Lincoln 
could  have  been  "especially"  disappointed  over  the  defeat  of  prohibition — 
when  there  was  no  other  issue  to  be  concerned  about — is  not  clear.  Further- 
more, how  disappointed  he  really  was  may  best  be  judged  by  his  refusal  to 
turn  a  hand  to  influence  the  result,  one  way  or  the  other.  His  position,  as 
judged  by  his  stand  against  prohibition  while  he  was  a  member  of  the  Illinois 
Legislature  a  few  years  prior  to  that  time,  was  still  clear  in  the  minds  of  the 
people,  and  he  seemed  to  have  been  satisfied  to  let  that  remain  as  his  gesture 
to  the  voters,  as  indicative  of  his  attitude  towards  the  referendum  measure. 
What  scant  consolation  "theorizers,"  as  Lincoln  was  in  the  habit  of  calling 
the  prohibitionists,  may  derive  from  the  fact  that  he  did  not  actively  oppose 
this  proposed  law  is  theirs — beyond  that,  only  with  the  sacrifice  of  facts. 

The  Rev.  Chapman  accredits  his  information  that  Lincoln  was  a  prohibi- 
tionist to  Mayor  James  B.  Merwin,1  who,  as  a  young  man,  was  a  temperance 
worker  in  the  army  during  the  Civil  War,  and  several  years  ago  announced 
that  he  and  Lincoln  together  "stumped  the  State  of  Illinois"  for  prohibition 
during  the  1855  campaign.  Mr.  Merwin,  according  to  his  own  story, 
lunched  with  President  Lincoln  on  the  last  day  of  the  President's  life,  at 
which  time,  Merwin  relates,  Lincoln  told  him  that  he  was  a  prohibitionist. 
The  necessity  of  telling  Mr.  Merwin  this,  if  they  had  campaigned  together 
throughout  Illinois,  is  not  commented  upon,  but,  at  any  rate,  he  is  said  to 
have  reiterated  his  belief  in  such  a  law.     Whether  Lincoln  ever  made  that 


!The  title  "Mayor"  has  not  been  accounted  for.  Authors  who  refer  to  James  B. 
Merwin  as  their  authority  seem  to  select  from  a  choice  of  titles,  such  as  "Reverend," 
"Honorable,"    "Chaplain,"    "Mayor"    and    also  "Major." 


12  MERWIN'S  TESTIMONY   DISCREDITED 

statement  to  Mr.  Merwin,  and  whether  he  stumped  the  State  of  Illinois  in 
1855  with  Merwin — who  must  then  have  been  in  his  infancy — and  whether 
Mr.  Merwin  even  lunched  with  the  President  on  that  or  any  other  day,  must 
all  be  questioned  in  the  complete  absence  of  evidence  of  any  weight  whatso- 
ever. The  assertion  that  Lincoln  took  part  in  that  campaign  is  without 
reliable  support  in  both  word  and  document,  and  is  plainly  and  abundantly 
denied  by  circumstances  surrounding  his  private  life  and  by  official  records 
his  public  life.  The  hearsay,  as  it  is  reported  by  numerous  present-day  Anti- 
Saloon  League  writers,  can  invariably  be  traced  to  Mr.  Merwin.  Dr.  William 
E.  Barton,  in  his  work,  "The  Life  of  Abraham  Lincoln,"1  states  that 
Robert  T.  Lincoln — President  Lincoln's  son,  who  recently  died — denied  the 
truth  of  Mr.  Merwin's  claims  that  he  had  dined  with  the  President  on  that 
day,  and  that  his  "impression  is  that  it  is  safe  to  omit  Lincoln  from  the  rest 
of  Mr.  Merwin's  recollections."  Mayor  Merwin,  it  should  be  noted,  was 
fanatically  enthusiastic  about  the  prohibition  theory,  and,  in  view  of  his 
many  absurd  declarations,  it  is  not  at  all  unfair  to  assume  that — like  William 
E.  (Pussyfoot)  Johnson,  who  has  publicly  announced  that  he  does  not 
hesitate  to  say  or  do  anything  to  gain  his  point — Mr.  Merwin  in  his  old  age 
thought,  as  he  advanced  those  claims,  that  he  saw  a  chance  to  do  the  world  a 
good  turn  by  throwing  in  the  influence  of  Lincoln  on  the  side  of  prohibition. 

XX      0      XX 

REFERENCE  to  James  B.  Merwin  occurs  frequently  among  the  authors 
who  insist  that  Lincoln  was  a  prohibitionist.  The  entire  structure 
seems  to  be  built  around  this  one  man's  testimony.  He  can  conveniently  be 
quoted,  as  he  was  often  on  hand  to  hear  things  nobody  else  ever  heard.  He 
is  regarded  as  an  authority  on  Lincoln,  therefore.  It  appears,  however,  that 
Nicolay  and  Hay,  the  authors  of  what  is  unquestionably  the  greatest  biograph- 
ical work  on  Lincoln  in  existence — in  ten  large  volumes — mistrusted  Mr. 
Merwin,  refusing  to  accept  data  which  he  proffered.  They  wrote  Lincoln 
down  as  "a  friend  of  temperance  in  the  use  of  spirits."  Other  men  are 
spoken  of  as  "prohibitionists,"  but  whenever  reference  is  made  to  Lincoln, 
in  connection  with  the  liquor  question,  he  is  invariably  referred  to  by  all  of 
the  accepted  biographers  as  an  advocate  of  TEMPERANCE.  This  distinc- 
tion is  always  made,  because  in  that  day  the  word  "temperance"  was  not 
corrupted  and  used  interchangeably  with  "prohibition."  Nicolay  and  Hay 
did  not  seem  to  have  heard  that  he  took  part  in  the  famous  prohibition  cam- 
paign in  Illinois.  Apparently,  they  wrote  the  biography  before  that  idea 
was  born.  They  were  of  the  opinion  that  Lincoln  abstained  from  use  of 
ardent  liquors  during  a  great  portion  of  his  life,  and  they  express  with  cer- 
tainty that  he  refrained  from  its  use  altogether  while  residing  in  Springfield. 
It  is  unlikely  that  he  refused  an  occasional  glass  of  wine,  or  failed  to  have  it 
in  his  home.  That  would  have  been  so  unusual  then  as  to  have  caused  consid- 
erable comment.  Even  now,  under  bone-dry  prohibition,  refusal  on  the 
part  of  prominent  men  to  indulge  is  deemed  sufficiently  whimsical  to  be 
mentioned  in  the  newspapers  of  the  day.  Charles  T.  White,  to  whose  book, 
"Lincoln  and  Prohibition,"  I  have  already  referred,  finds  the  facts  set 
forth  by  Nicolay  and  Hay  to  be  very  annoying,  and  he  laments  their  stating 
the  case  in  its  true  light.  It  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  "agreement"  made  by 
his  recent  investigators.     Mr.  White  complains  bitterly  that  the  biographers 

1  Volume  II,  page  450. 


LINCOLN'S  MILITANT   LAW-PARTNER  13 

refused  to  take  Merwin's  word  for  anything.  "James  B.  Merwin  offered 
them  data,"  he  wails,  "but  they  did  not  seem  to  want  it." 

Nicolay  and  Hay  are  in  full  accord  on  this  point  with  other  recognized 
authorities  on  Lincoln,  all  of  whose  works  are  at  variance  with  the  recent 
made-to-order  biographies,  for  sale  or  indorsed  by  the  Anti-Saloon  League. 
There  is  the  excellent  work  by  the  Rev.  William  E.  Barton,  "The  Life  of 
Abraham  Lincoln,"  already  mentioned,  which  traces  carefully  Lincoln's 
every  move  and  whose  author  seems  to  be  unbiased.  Dr.  Barton  does  not 
mention  the  Illinois  prohibition  referendum,  further  than  to  declare  unfounded 
the  persistent  reports  of  Lincoln's  participation  in  it.  He  deals  with  those 
issues  in  which  Lincoln  took  part,  and  as  he  took  no  part  in  the  referendum 
campaign,  there  is  no  further  mention  of  it. 

Another  standard  biography  is  the  "Life  of  Lincoln,"  by  Ida  M.  Tarbell. 
In  her  work,  Miss  Tarbell  appears  to  have  found  nothing  to  indicate  that 
the  Great  Emancipator  was  an  extremist  on  this  or  any  other  question,  or,  if 
any  such  data  was  offered  it  was  evidently  not  considered  as  authentic  and 
was  omitted  from  the  pages  of  her  work,  which  is  one  of  the  greatest  biogra- 
phies of  Lincoln  in  existence.  The  distinction  should  not  fail  to  be  made, 
between  the  biographies  of  Abraham  Lincoln  which  for  years,  for  decades, 
lave  been  regarded  as  authentic  and  which  contain  no  reference  to  him  as  a 
friend  of  prohibition;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  the  recent  books  hastily  pro- 
duced and  thrown  on  the  market  since  the  Anti-Saloon  League,  the  Methodist 
Board  of  Temperance,  Prohibition  and  Public  Morals,  the  Women's  Christian 
Temperance  Union  and  similar  organizations  have  created  a  demand  for 
literature  identifying  Lincoln  with  prohibition  and  depicting  him  as  "the 
founder  of  the  present  prohibition  movement." 

XX      XX      XX 

THUS  far,  we  have  considered  biographies  of  Abraham  Lincoln  that 
have  been  general  in  tone.  There  are  also  reliable  works  which  are 
specific  on  this  question.  Joseph  Fort  Newton,  author  of  "Lincoln  and 
Herndon,"  says,  in  connection  with  the  referendum,  that  "Lincoln — neither 
prohibitionist  nor  abolitionist — held  aloof,  not  wishing  to  divert  attention 
from  the  supreme  question  of  the  age,  but  Herndon,"  he  states,  "plunged 
into  the  thick  of  the  fight." 

This  reference  is  to  William  H.  Herndon,  Lincoln's  law  partner  from  1844 
until  the  latter's  death  in  the  year  1865 — a  period  of  twenty-one  years.  He 
was  a  man  of  many  fine  qualities,  though  heavily  addicted  to  drink.  It  is 
stated  by  numerous  writers  of  that  period  that  Lincoln  used  to  go  to  the 
calaboose  and  pay  Herndon's  fine  and  bring  him  home  after  nights  of  dissi- 
pation. Lincoln  was  criticised  for  continuing  his  partnership  with  him,  and 
Mrs.  Lincoln  appears  to  have  strongly  shared  in  that  criticism.  He  an- 
nounced, however,  that  he  was  going  to  "stick  to  'Billy'  Herndon."  To  Mr. 
Herndon  liquor  was  a  personal  enemy ;  it  was  his  master.  He  drank  inter- 
mittently, but,  drunk  or  sober,  he  was  a  fiery  prohibitionist.  Like  so  many, 
he  wanted  to  prohibit  others  from  using  even  temperately  that  which  he  lacked 
the  mental  stamina  to  use  properly.  He  was  mayor  of  Springfield  in  1855, 
and  during  his  term  of  office,  and  during  the  referendum  campaign,  he  re- 
mained "singularly  abstemious,"  Mr.  Newton  writes.  When  the  prohibition 
campaign  opened  he  threw  himself  forcefully  into  the  fight,  and  through  his 
activity  Abraham  Lincoln's  name  became  unjustly  associated  with  the  cam- 
paign, and  in  this  way  only. 


14  RECORD  OF  "STUMP  SPEECHES"  MISSING 

Whatever  faults  Herndon  may  have  had,  he  was  a  power  on  the  platform, 
and  he  also  seemed  to  have  wielded  considerable  influence  with  his  pen.  His 
participation  in  the  campaign  was  intensive.  He  travelled  about  the  State, 
speaking  for  the  prohibition  referendum  measure,  possessing  vigor  and  elo- 
quence, but  his  method  of  attack  was  as  different  from  that  of  the  mild- 
mannered  Lincoln  as  any  two  methods  can  be.  "Shut  up  the  grocery,"  he 
thundered,  "smash  the  still,  and  each  and  all,  man,  widow  and  orphan,  will 
be  benefited  from  the  humblest  to  the  highest!"  A  prohibition  law,  he 
assured  his  hearers,  would  accomplish  all.  He  damned  liquor  and  cursed 
those  who  made  it.  The  drunkard  was  the  victim,  not  the  transgressor, 
according  to  his  views.  The  denunciation  of  liquor  and  its  uses,  now  heard, 
is  an  echo  of  the  ill-tempered  harangues  uttered  three-quarters  of  a  century 
ago  by  Herndon.  Lincoln — always  sober — was  moderate  in  speech  as  well 
as  habits,  but  Herndon — often  drunk — was  immoderate  in  both.  Lincoln 
was  satisfied  with  TEMPERANCE,  while  Herndon  demanded  nothing  less 
than  absolute  PROHIBITION. 

William  H.  Herndon  lived  until  the  year  1891.  During  his  later  years  he 
produced  what  may  be  regarded  as  the  most  intimate  biography  of  his  illus- 
trious law  partner.  This  work  was  done  with  the  collaboration  of  Jesse  W. 
Weik,  a  man  of  scholarly  attainments.  The  work  is  complete  in  three  vol- 
umes. It  goes  into  every  shade  of  opinion  held  by  Lincoln  on  public  ques- 
tions, as  well  as  many  private  ones.  This  is  significant:  Herndon,  himself 
a  pronounced  prohibitionist,  explains  Lincoln's  attitude  on  this  question  as 
an  advocate  of  TEMPERANCE.  He  takes  evident  delight  in  pointing  out 
where  Lincoln's  and  his  own  opinions  agree.  It  is  most  natural  to  assume 
that  had  Lincoln  shared  with  him  in  his  views  on  prohibition,  he  would  have 
taken  pride  in  relating  that  fact  also.  Still  Herndon  puts  Lincoln  over  in 
the  other  camp,  and,  as  already  pointed  out,  the  two  terms  were  then  used 
to  describe  distinctly  different  schools  of  thought.  Like  Nicolay  and  Hay, 
Herndon  and  Weik  say  that  he  was  "an  advocate  of  temperance."  They 
would  not  do  otherwise. 

So  much  for  evidence  from  leading  biographers  on  Abraham  Lincoln,  as 
to  his  attitude  on  prohibition,  and  the  fiction  about  his  participation  in  the 
campaign  of  1855.  Let  us  not  forget  that  there  were  newspapers  in  that 
day,  which  followed  Lincoln's  every  move  and  registered  his  public  utterances, 
and  that  the  files  of  these  newspapers  are  today  invaluable  records  of  what 
then  transpired.  Lincoln  was  known  at  that  time  far  outside  the  boundaries 
of  Illinois.  He  had  not  only  served  eight  years  in  the  Illinois  Legislature — 
where  he  combated  the  prohibition  idea — and  been  a  member  of  Congress, 
but  he  had  already  gained  renown  as  a  defender  of  the  Union.  He  had,  a 
few  months  prior  to  that  time,  made  his  famous  Peoria  speech,  in  reply  to 
Senator  Douglas.  Does  it  not  seem  that,  had  he  so  completely  reversed  him- 
self on  prohibition  and  taken  such  a  part  in  the  campaign  as  to  "stump  the 
State"  for  this  law,  that  fact  too  would  have  been  mentioned  in  the  news- 
papers and  other  journals  of  the  day?  I  have  in  my  possession  signed  state- 
ments from  libraries  in  Illinois  cities — mentioned  by  Mr.  Merwin  as  points 
that  he  and  Lincoln  visited  during  the  prohibition  campaign,  as  well  as  other 
places  in  Illinois — declaring  that  no  documentary  substantiation  exists  to 
indicate  that  Lincoln  took  part  in  that  campaign  in  any  way  whatsoever, 
anywhere  in  the  State.  Some  of  these  statements  are  signed  by  the  librarians 
themselves,  and  have  been  issued  after  thorough  search  of  all  material  that 


WHAT  SENATOR  DOUGLAS  SAID  15 

might  throw  some  light  on  the  question,  including  the  files  of  the  newspapers 
of  each  particular  locality  for  the  entire  period  of  time  the  campaign  was  in 
progress.  Several  of  these  persons  have  been  kind  enough  also  to  consult 
"local  historians"  about  it,  with  the  unanimous  opinion  that  they  do  not  con- 
sider Lincoln's  participation  in  the  campaign  as  "in  any  sense  probable,"  or 
words  to  that  effect.  Every  little  incident  in  Lincoln's  life  is  still  common 
knowledge  among  the  people  in  the  Illinois  cities  where  he  spent  the  greater 
part  of  his  life,  and  the  suggestion  that  perhaps  he  was  a  prohibitionist,  and 
that  he  might  have  taken  part  in  a  campaign  for  such  a  law,  seems  to  have 
struck  some  of  them  as  rather  ludicrous.  Their  "personal  opinion,"  it  may 
also  be  noted,  corresponds  with  the  records,  as  well  as  with  the  views  of 
reliable  biographers.  A  few  lines  in  the  newspaper  files  from  that  period, 
giving  accounts  of  Lincoln's  stump-speaking  tour,  would  serve  as  formidable 
evidence.  On  the  other  hand,  the  absence  of  all  such  record  should  put"  a 
final  quietus  upon  the  absurd  claims  made  through  misleading  literature  now 
being  nationally  circulated,  and  shame  the  authors  of  fabrications  designed 
to  make  Lincoln  out  a  stump-speaker  for  the  1855  prohibition  law. 

XX      W      XX 

FOR  a  long  time  there  have  been  numerous  contradictory  stories  in  circu- 
lation about  Lincoln's  habits  in  regard  to  liquor,  but  until  a  few  years 
ago  only  slight  difference  of  opinion  has  existed  as  to  his  attitude  towards 
the  theory  of  prohibition.  A  generation  ago,  not  one  per  cent,  of  the  Amer- 
ican people  thought  of  Lincoln  as  a  prohibitionist.  The  propaganda  had  not 
commenced  at  that  time,  and  enough  people  still  remembered  his  stand  in 
opposition  to  such  a  "law  to  quickly  stop  the  nonsense  if  it  had  been  seriously 
undertaken.  Now  it  is  different.  Few  remain  of  those  who  may  have  per- 
sonal recollections  as  to  his  attitude.  Time  has  thus  worked  into  the  hands 
of  those  who  seek  to  have  this  generation  regard  him  in  the  new  light — as 
a  prohibitionist.  The  final  step  is  to  have  those  coming  after  us  consider 
Lincoln  as  himself  "the  founder  of  the  prohibition  movement."  That  cam- 
paign is  now  well  under  way,  and  has  been  remarkably  successful  owing  to 
the  fervor  of  its  promoters  and  to  the  systematic  persistency  with  which 
misleading  information  has  been  disseminated.  A  large  percentage  of  people 
now  sincerely  believe  every  word  of  the  literature  that  would  have  been  gen- 
erally laughed  at  a  generation  ago.  Everyone  is  impressionable  in  the  course 
of  time.  With  continuous  hammering  obvious  falsehoods  may  be  driven 
into  the  minds  of  people.  The  success — though  it  is  only  temporary — of  the 
effort  to  make  Lincoln  appear  to  have  been  an  adherent  of  the  shortsighted, 
baneful  theory  called  "prohibition"  is  an  injustice  to  his  memory  and  to  his 
exalted  name,  and  it  verifies  the  statement  that,  by  constant  and  persistent 
repetition,  gross  falsehoods  may  be  made  to  appear  as  the  gospel  truth. 

Looking  back  over  a  period  of  about  three-quarters  of  a  century,  it  is 
more  difficult  to  definitely  determine  Lincoln's  personal  habits  in  the  use  of 
liquor  than  to  ascertain  what  were  his  views  on  prohibition.  One  is  private, 
while  the  other  is  public.  About  his  personal  habits,  therefore,  there  will 
always  remain  some  doubt,  and  we  can  give  the  prohibitionists  all  the  benefit 
of  the  doubt.  To  what  extent  he  used  liquor,  if  at  all,  is  of  minor  conse- 
quence. There  is  evidence  that  in  his  early  manhood  he  was  liberal-minded 
on  liquor,  even  in  the  matter  of  consuming  it — evidence  to  fairly  substantiate 
the  claim  that  he  was  "particularly  fond  of  whisky."  Senator  Douglas  said 
that  "Lincoln  could  ruin  more  liquor  than  all  the  boys  in  the  town  together." 


16  YOUNG  LINCOLN  WORKED  IN  DISTILLERY 

The  liquor  question  occurs  repeatedly  in  their  debates.  Mr.  Douglas  appears 
to  have  taken  great  delight  in  referring  to  him  as  a  "grocery  keeper,"  which 
in  those  days  meant  a  seller  of  whisky.  The  taunts  Douglas  directed  at  him 
as  a  "whisky  seller"  while  he  was  part  owner  of  a  "grocery"  in  New  Salem, 
never  seemed  to  have  annoyed  him.  On  one  of  these  occasions  his  retort  was 
that  "Lincoln  was  on  one  side  of  the  counter  and  Douglas  on  the  other 
side."  He  went  still  further.  He  volunteered  the  information  to  his  audi- 
ences during  debates  with  Senator  Douglas — shortly  before  he  became  Presi- 
dent of  the  United  States — that  he  did  not  consider  selling  whisky  to  be  "a 
great  sin,"  and  added  that  he  had  worked,  as  a  young  man,  "during  the  latter 
part  of  one  winter  in  a  still-house  up  at  the  head  of  a  hollow."  In  other 
words,  Lincoln  at  one  time  worked  in  a  whisky  distillery.1 

It  would  be  impossible  to  give  a  list  of  the  references  used  in  my  work  to 
establish  the  true  status  of  Lincoln  on  the  prohibition  question.  I  am  pre- 
pared, however,  to  back  up  with  recognized  authority  every  statement  I  have 
made  and  will  make.  Most  of  the  biographical  works  mentioned  in  this 
discourse  may  be  found  in  almost  any  first  class  public  library.  The  House 
Journal  of  Illinois,  however,  the  official  record  containing  the  data  on 
Lincoln's  opposition  to  prohibition  measures  while  he  was  a  member  of  the 
Legislature  of  that  State,  may  not  be  found  in  more  than  a  half  dozen  libra- 
ries in  the  United  States,  outside  of  Illinois.  In  my  work  I  have  referred  to 
generally  accepted  biographies,  as  well  as  to  legal  records  and  documents  in 
several  leading  libraries  in  this  country,  principally  the  New  York  Public 
Library,  the  Chicago  Public  Library,  and  a  third  great  library  on  matters 
pertaining  to  Abraham  Lincoln,  the  Lincoln  Library  of  Springfield,  Illinois. 

XX      XX      XX 

OWING  to  the  great  interest  in  Abraham  Lincoln,  a  mass  of  mythology 
has  grown  up  around  his  name.  Stories,  based  upon  this  prejudice  or 
that,  now  spring  up  in  quick  succession.  While  he  is  being  quoted  and  mis- 
quoted in  numerous  ways,  on  no  issue  has  he  been  misrepresented  with  such 
systematic  persistency  as  on  that  of  prohibition,  since  this  law  was  adopted. 
There  appears  to  be  no  method  too  contemptible  to  be  employed  even  by 
those  who  advertise  themselves  as  specialists  in  "public  morals"  and  respect  for 
that  which  is  honorable.  The  Anti-Saloon  League  and  its  like  have  spent 
untold  sums  of  money  in  books,  pamphlets  and  lectures,  to  have  the  American 
people  believe  that  Abraham  Lincoln  was  a  prohibitionist,  first,  last  and  all 
the  time. 

If  the  facts  in  the  case  were  not  what  they  are,  such  expenditures  would 
not  have  been  required.  It  is  not  an  easy  task  to  reverse  the  opinion  of  a 
nation,  especially  in  the  absence  of  reliable  data  upon  which  to  base  conten- 
tions. It  is  true,  that  there  was  not  a  great  deal  of  preliminary  work  to  do, 
in  the  way  of  tearing  down  the  structure  which  might  be  said  to  have  existed, 
as  time  has  largely  eliminated  what  was  once  popularly  known  as  to  Lincoln's 
opposition  to  the  prohibition  idea.  The  greatest  difficulty  they  have  encoun- 
tered has  been  to  get  something  that  looks  like  a  foundation  upon  which  to 

!For  the  convenience  of  those  who  may  regard  the  above  statement  as  unbelievable, 
I  wish  to  refer  them  to  page  6591,  which  is  Volume  XVI  of  "Masterpieces  of  Eto- 
quence,"  edited  by  Mayo  W.  Hazeltine,  Henry  Cabot  Lodge,  William  Mason,  John  D. 
Long,  Albert  J.  Beveridge,  John  C.  Spooner  and  Archbishop  Ireland,  and  published  by 
P.  F.  Collier  &  Son  of  New  York  City. 


REVERSING  THE   NATION'S   OPINION  \7 

build  the  new  dictum.  But,  cost  what  it  will,  Lincoln  must  be  entirely  made 
over  into  a  prohibition  leader,  and  it  is  in  this  new  and  imposing  light  they 
would  have  him  loom  up.  Now,  the  American  people  must  accept  Lincoln 
in  this  new  role,  as  Apostle  of  Prohibition,  or  else  rebuke  the  attempt  so 
dexterously  being  made  to  associate  his  name  with  prohibition,  and  to  make 
him  appear  as  its  outstanding  champion. 

Facts  are  stubborn  things.  They  come  to  light  in  due  time.  Convincing  a 
hundred  or  more  millions  of  people  that  something  is  true  which  is  not  true 
is  a  tremendous  job.  It  is  doubtful  if  it  can  be  done — if  there  are  enough 
people  who  prefer  to  live  in  their  prejudices,  and  to  accept  as  true  only  that 
which  conforms  to  their  personal  whims.  It  is  not  pleasant  to  look  at  the 
dark  side  of  things,  nor  to  charge  others  with  wrong  intentions,  but  when 
an  organization  has  had  its  theories  tried  out  on  a  nation  for  a  period  of 
seven  years  or  more,  and  the  experiment  has  become  more  and  more  of  a 
failure  for  each  year  that  has  gone  by,  still  the  clamour  is  for  more  time, 
more  men  and  more  money  to  make  that  theory  effective,  then  it  is  not  star- 
tling that  there  are  people,  very  many  people,  who  become  convinced  that 
the  system  is  being  perpetuated  for  the  benefit  of  a  few.  This  is  not  an 
attempt  to  impute  to  others  bad  motives,  more  than  to  say  that  questionable 
methods  are  being  employed  to  gain  what  might  be  considered  a  worthy 
enough  end.  The  suggestion  can  very  properly  be  made  to  the  members  of 
the  League  to  do  some  investigating  on  their  own  account.  It  is  not  well  to 
be  too  confiding  in  any  kind  of  organization,  especially  one  of  a  political 
nature.  One  does  not  know  what  may  actuate  its  leaders,  and  though  they 
may  be  sincere,  it  is  possible  that  the  methods  employed  for  gaining  their 
ends  are  questionable  or  unwise.  When  that  organization  says,  for  instance, 
that  Lincoln  was  a  prohibitionist,  demand  a  reasonable  amount  of  evidence 
to  substantiate  that  claim — evidence  other  than  it  has  itself  created.  That  is 
fair  enough.  Demand  reliable  data.  The  Anti-Saloon  League  is  a  political 
party — although  a  one-issue  party — and  as  such  is  subject  to  the  ills  that 
befall  similar  organizations,  as  well  as  prone  to  deception  in  order  that  its 
own  existence  may  be  perpetuated.  Now  comes  the  announcement  that  the 
League  is  going  to  cover  the  country  "knee-deep"  with  literature,  to  use  its 
own  words.  The  nation's  disgust  with  the  prohibition  law  is  to  be  offset 
with  a  flood  of  propaganda.  Every  day  of  the  week  is  to  be  campaign  day, 
with  overtime  on  Sunday.  The  work  has  been  going  strong,  but  it  is  yet  to 
be  greatly  speeded  up.  The  League  has  a  fine-working  organization.  It 
prides  itself  on  its  tremendous  output  of  literature.  Circulars  are  now  being 
produced,  bearing  the  very  handwriting  and  signature  of  Abraham  Lincoln, 
"facsimile"  documents  craftily  designed  to  show  that  he  held  to  the  theory 
of  prohibition.  However,  a  careful  examination  of  these  documents  reveal 
that  what  Lincoln  in  reality  advocated  was  TEMPERANCE,  and  not 
PROHIBITION,  and  when  a  person  spoke  of  "temperance"  in  those  days 
he  had  no  thought  of  "prohibition,"  and  vice  versa.  So-called  Temperance 
organizations  have  now  seized  upon  these  old  facsimiles  and  have  had  them 
reproduced,  supplementing  them  with  comments  aimed  to  direct  the  readers 
into  viewing  them  as  indorsements  of  Prohibition.  There  are,  furthermore, 
bogus  facsimiles  now  in  circulation  by  both  sides — for  and  against  this  law. 
It  is  best  to  put  all  of  them  in  the  discard,  in  company  with  the  "agreement" 
of  Charles  T.  White's  investigators,  who — more  than  sixty  years  after  the 
death  of  Lincoln — discovered  that  he  had  been  a  prohibitionist.  Persons 
who  disregard  historic  data  can  not  be  depended  upon  to  display  genuine 


18  LINCOLN,  NOT  A  DEFENDER  OF  LIQUOR 

facsimiles,  or  other  documents.  Far  more  importance  is  to  be  attached  to 
the  conclusions  of  recognized  biographers  of  Lincoln  who  were  his  associates 
or  contemporaries,  and,  above  all,  who  were  not  biased  nor  disposed  to  make 
out  a  favorable  case  for  prohibition  in  order  that  the  market  for  their  output 
might  be  the  more  lucrative. 

XX      XX      0 

I  DO  not  believe  there  is  to  be  found  anywhere  in  Lincoln's  addresses  or 
quotations  an  instance  where  he  praises  liquor,  but  neither  is  there  to  be 
found  an  instance  of  his  advocating  the  prohibition  theory  of  government  as 
the  remedy  for  its  misuse,  which  was  common  also  in  his  day.  What  he  may 
have  said  on  this  question  in  his  youth  remains  unknown.  As  a  young  man, 
Lincoln  acquired  a  great  passion  for  argument.  He  loved  debate,  and  as  he 
grew  older  his  mental  endowments  and  his  power  for  logical  discussion 
became  marvelously  developed.  With  this  development,  it  is  important  to 
observe,  his  views  broadened.  As  a  youth  he  was  headstrong  and  contentious 
on  a  few  subjects,  particularly  the  Bible.  Herndon  relates  that  he  often  car- 
ried the  Bible  with  him  and  when  he  found  a  group  of  men  that  were  disposed 
to  listen  or  to  debate,  he  would  read  a  chapter  out  of  it  and  proceed  to  argue 
against  it.  As  he  grew  older  he  became  more  discreet,  and  more  tolerant  of 
views  that  could  not  be  reasoned  out  on  the  spur  of  the  moment.  Instead 
of  becoming  narrow  on  a  particular  subject,  he  took  a  broader  view  of  all 
subjects.  It  would  be  highly  erroneous,  however,  to  attribute  his  growing 
tolerance  on  all  questions,  and  the  increased  comprehensiveness  of  his  sym- 
pathies with  those  who  did  not  agree  with  him,  as  due  to  indifference  to  that 
which  was  wrong.  He  never  sacrificed  principle,  but  he  did  sacrifice  a  great 
deal  of  his  early  passion  for  promptly  converting  everyone,  with  whom  he 
came  in  contact,  to  his  own  views.  When  a  vital  principle  was  involved,  it 
can  not  be  truthfully  said  of  him  that  he  was  tolerant  or  evasive,  but  direct 
and  aggressive.  But  to  classify  him  as  a  reformer,  in  the  common  accepta- 
tion of  the  word  today,  is  sadly  misleading  and  unjust. 

The  character  of  Lincoln  is  so  remarkable  that  one  need  not  wonder  that 
so  much  importance  is  attached  to  things  he  said  and  did.  What  he  thought 
about  problems  over  a  vast  range  of  subjects  is  now  of  universal  interest. 
His  views  on  topics  on  which  he  expressed  himself  are  clear  and  comprehen- 
sive. The  fact  that  he  perceived  and  defined,  three-quarters  of  a  century 
ago,  just  how  a  prohibition  law  would  work  out  in  our  country  today,  which 
millions  of  people,  even  after  years  of  experience  with  this  law,  are  still 
incapable  of  seeing — or  seeing,  refuse  to  admit — is  one  of  very  many  in- 
stances that  might  be  pointed  to.  What  he  is  believed  to  have  said,  over 
which  there  has  been  so  much  controversy,  is  true  in  the  light  of  our  country's 
experience  with  prohibition.  And  if  Lincoln  did  not  say  it,  there  is  equal 
consolation  to  be  derived  from  the  fact  that  there  were  other  Americans 
capable  of  putting  into  Lincolnian  words  at  such  a  remote  time  what  is 
proving  itself  true  today. 

XX      XX      XX 

THERE  is  a  lot  of  speculation  as  to  the  home  life  of  Abraham  Lincoln. 
Whether  wine  or  any  other  liquor  ever  penetrated  as  far  as  to  his  dinner 
table  is  greatly  perturbing  the  reformers  of  today.  Among  his  biographers 
there  is  slight  difference  of  opinion  as  to  his  habits  during  the  years  he 
resided  in  Springfield.  It  is  quite  generally  conceded  that  he  partook  of  no 
strong  liquor   during  that  time.     Perhaps  his   law   partner,   Mr.   Herndon, 


MRS.  HAYES  UPSET  WHITE  HOUSE  CUSTOM  19 

drank  all  that  the  business  could  stand.  But  as  to  the  years  he  lived  in  the 
White  House  there  is  considerable  difference  of  opinion.  There  is  not  much 
at  this  late  day  to  show  to  what  extent  Lincoln  used  wine;  perhaps  for  the 
same  reason  that  the  personal  habits  of  the  present  executive — in  the  matter 
of  food  and  drink — will  soon  be  forgotten.  Wine  was  common  then ;  about 
as  common  as  coffee  is  at  present.  Consequently,  little  was  said  and  less 
recorded  about  it.  It  might  be  difficult  seventy-five  years  hence  to  determine 
to  what  extent  the  late  President  Harding  drank  coffee.  It  was  not  the  use 
of  liquor  in  those  days,  but  the  non-use,  that  was  so  uncommon  as  to  be 
written  down.  The  Rev.  Duncan  C.  Milner,  in  his  book,  "Lincoln  and 
Liquor,"  states  that  "Mrs.  Lucy  Webb  Hayes,  wife  of  President  Rutherford 
B.  Hayes,  was  the  first  mistress  of  the  Executive  Mansion  who  banished 
liquor  from  social  functions."  Such  an  act,  it  should  be  observed,  was  then 
so  out  of  the  ordinary  as  to  have  been  recorded.  Mr.  Milner  admits,  how- 
ever, that  even  in  her  case  exception  was  made  for  "distinguished  guests." 
Milner's  work  is  indorsed  by  the  Anti-Saloon  League,  being  listed  in  the 
group  of  "historical"  books.  It  becomes  evident,  therefore,  that  not  until 
twelve  years  after  Mrs.  Lincoln  was  mistress  of  the  Executive  Mansion  did 
anyone  there,  in  similar  authority,  abolish  liquor.  If  Mr.  Milner  is  historic- 
ally correct — which  may  readily  be  granted  as  to  this  point — it  is  clear  that 
there  was  no  prohibition  in  the  White  House  until  Mrs.  Hayes  upset  estab- 
lished custom  several  years  after  Mrs.  Lincoln  had  reigned  there,  over  the 
Lincoln  household. 

The  Rev.  Duncan  C.  Milner  publishes  a  great  deal  that  is  calculated,  he 
says,  to  "corroborate  the  claims  that  Lincoln  spoke  in  favor  of  the  prohibition 
law  in  Illinois,"  but  he  is  careful  to  mention  Mayor  Merwin  as  authority 
for  his  information.  A  conspicuous  instance  is  where  he  quotes  the  Mayor 
as  having  declared :  "Mr.  Lincoln  was  associated  with  me  in  campaigning 
for  more  than  six  months."  There  can  be  no  great  confidence  placed  in  one 
who  makes  assertions  of  this  nature.  Both  Milner  and  Merwin  must  have 
overlooked  the  fact  that  the  entire  campaign  had  less  than  four  months' 
duration.  The  Illinois  Legislature  passed  the  Prohibition  Bill  in  the  early 
part  of  February,  1855,  and  the  bill  was  not  approved  by  the  governor  until 
the  12th  of  that  month.  The  Referendum  election  was  held  on  June  4th  of 
the  same  year,  thus  confining  the  campaign  to  a  period  of  less  than  four 
months.  Taking  this  into  consideration,  it  is  plain  that  careless  claims  have 
been  made  and  thoughtlessly  quoted  by  authors  of  Anti-Saloon  League  litera- 
ture that  is  now  to  cover  the  country  "knee-deep."1 

This  is  the  situation:  Writers  of  books  on  Lincoln  that  are  indorsed  by 
the  League  abound  in  absurd  declarations,  but  all  of  them  contend,  despite 
inconsistencies  and  contradictions,  that  he  favored  prohibition.  Each  author 
has  something  new  and  novel,  which  sounds  good  in  prohibition  ears.  These 
propagandists'  stories  not  only  fail  to  agree  one  with  another,  but  are  more 
or  less  at  variance  with  standard  biographies  and  official  documents.  The 
Rev.  Ervin  Chapman  alone,  of  the  more  prominent,  is  positive  about  Lincoln 
being  a  full-fledged  prohibitionist,  while  Rev.  Duncan  C.  Milner,  for  example, 
is  satisfied  for  the  greater  part  to  quote  other  writers  to  that  effect,  and 
balances  up  by  also  quoting  authors  who  deny  that  he  inclined  to  that  theory. 


iThe  Prohibition  Bill  was  termed  "An  Act  for  the  Suppression  of  Intemperance."  It 
is  published  in  full  in  the  volume  issued  by  the  State  of  Illinois,  containing  the  laws 
passed  by  the  Nineteenth  General  Assembly,  which  convened  in  Springfield  on  January 
1st,  1855.  It  happens  to  be  the  first  law  in  that  volume,  and  commences  on  page  3.  The 
reader  is  referred  to  this  official  record,  which  may  be  found  in  public  libraries. 


20  PRESIDENTS  RECOMMENDED   PROHIBITION 

THE  Anti -Saloon  League  has  provided  a  tremendous  market  for  litera- 
ture meeting  with  certain  requirements,  and  particularly  this  one  re- 
quirement— Lincoln  was  a  prohibitionist.  This  must  be  the  general  conclu- 
sion. The  indorsement  of  the  League  should  not  be  underestimated — what 
it  means  to  the  author  of  any  book  or  pamphlet  that  makes  a  strong  blast 
in  the  desirable  direction.  Producing  something  that  makes  good  propaganda 
evidently  insures  a  ready  sale,  and  censure  should  be  no  more  directed 
towards  writers  who  play  for  that  patronage,  than  towards  those  who  trust- 
fully absorb,  from  year  to  year,  the  tremendous  output  of  that  concern. 

This  might  be  considered  intemperate  criticism.  It  is  not.  It  is  charitable, 
in  view  of  the  circumstances.  Mr.  White,  in  his  ill-named  book,  "Lincoln 
and  Prohibition,"  takes  up  a  considerable  portion  with  the  reproduction  in 
full,  of  the  proposed  1855  Prohibition  Referendum  Bill  of  Illinois,  "as  it 
was  framed  by  Abraham  Lincoln."  The  reader  is  led  to  believe  that  there 
is  no  doubt  about  Lincoln's  authorship  of  that  law.  Such  misrepresentation 
is  plainly  deliberate  and  no  criticism  can  do  justice  to  it.  An  authenticated 
history  of  Illinois,  which  states  specifically  who  prepared  that  law,  should 
have  had  some  consideration.  It  has  been  maintained  that,  to  publish  the 
Lincoln  quotation  against  prohibition  without  giving  definitely  the  circum- 
stances under  which  it  was  uttered  is  unfair,  but  it  should  be  remembered 
that  in  the  case  of  this  quotation,  it  is  a  well  known  fact  that  it  has  been 
extensively  used  without  its  genuineness  being  questioned  until  in  recent 
years;  whereas,  the  author  of  "Lincoln  and  Prohibition"  now  springs 
something  wholly  new  upon  the  world,  which  a  fair  knowledge  of  Lincoln 
should  have  informed  him  was  a  wretched  falsehood,  still  presenting  it  as 
established  fact.  Books  could  be  written,  exposing  similar  trickery,  but  a 
few  examples  are  all  that  we  can  deal  with  at  this  time. 

Here  is  a  famous  alibi,  contributed  to  Mr.  White's  book  just  mentioned: 
In  1917  Mayor  Merwin — who  happened  to  be  on  hand  to  hear  so  many  odd 
things — made  a  statement  wherein  he  anticipated  difficulty  in  making  his 
assertions  stick,  because  of  "lack  of  stenographic  reports  of  any  of  Lincoln's 
addresses  in  the  1855  campaign."  "Stenographers,"  he  proceeds  to  explain, 
"were  a  rarety  in  Illinois  at  that  time."  It  is  true  that  stenographers  were  a 
"rarety"  at  that  time,  but  it  is  remarkable  that  the  addresses  Mr.  Merwin 
asserts  Lincoln  made  should  all  have  failed  to  be  reported  or  published  in 
the  press  of  the  day,  while  the  address  Lincoln  delivered  before  the  Wash- 
ingtonian  Society  thirteen  years  previous  to  that  time — when  stenographers 
were  at  least  equally  rare,  and  while  he  was  comparatively  little  known  even 
in  his  own  State — should  have  been  reported  and  published  in  its  entirety.1 

Unquestionably,  the  desire  to  do  good  has  been  better  than  the  methods 
employed  by  those  who  are  responsible  for  the  absurd  and  contradictory 
stories  wThich  have  beclouded  this  question  in  recent  years.  That  the  ma- 
jority of  prohibition  advocates  have  the  redeeming  feature  of  good  intentions 
may  be  readily  granted,  but  as  to  the  wisdom  of  the  policy  that  the  end 
justifies  the  means,  however  worthy  or  unworthy,  there  has  always  been 
doubt.  It  may  also  be  granted  that  reprehensible  methods  persons  employ 
to  gain  a  point  often  appear  more  reprehensible  to  one  who  is  not  in  sympathy 


Lincoln's  address  on  Temperance  to  the  Washingtonian  Society  of  Springfield,  Illi- 
nois, was  given  on  Washington's  birthday  anniversary,  February  22nd,  1842,  and  it  was 
published  on  the  front  page  of  the  Sangamon  Weekly  Journal  in  the  first  issue  after 
its  delivery. 


FOR   ALL   "UNCIVILIZED    TRIBES"  21 


with  them,  but  if  the  Anti-Saloon  League  does  not  succeed  before  long  in 
filling  its  converts  to  the  point  of  saturation  on  false  propaganda,  their 
capacity  is  indeed  astounding.  9 

0      XX      XX 

ALL  the  presidents  of  our  country  have  approved  of  temperance,  and 
have  publicly  defended  it.  There  is  not  an  exception.  But  they  have 
all  balked  when  pressed  for  approval  of  the  prohibition  theory  of  government. 
Both  prior  to,  as  well  as  after  the  time  of  Lincoln's  administration,  they 
advocated  severe  restrictive  measures  for  the  American  Indians,  and  criti- 
cised the  sale  of  liquor  among  the  uncivilized  tribes  of  the  world.  Presidents 
Harrison,  Cleveland,  McKinley  and  Roosevelt  are  quoted  in  the  Rev.  Milner's 
book,  already  referred  to,  as  having  been  in  favor  of  drastic  measures  of 
regulation  or  absolute  prohibition  of  liquor  among  "all  uncivilized  peoples." 
Harrison  called  liquor  "the  burning  curse  of  Africa;"  Cleveland  said:  "I 
recommend  prohibition  of  arms  and  intoxicants  to  natives  in  the  regulated 
zones;"  Roosevelt  advocated  stronger  measures  to  keep  spirituous  liquors 
from  the  American  Indians,  and  other  "uncivilized  tribes."  Therefore,  in 
the  opinion  of  Anti-Saloon  Leaguers  and  members  of  the  Woman's  Christian 
Temperance  Union,  these  presidents  were  in  reality  prohibitionists,  and  upon 
such  ground  they  endeavor  to  justify  their  contentions  that  their  theory  is 
fitting  and  proper  for  all  of  the  American  people.  According  to  that  logic, 
the  question  we  have  to  settle  is  whether  we  are  a  nation  or  a  tribe.  It  will 
require  more  effective  propaganda  than  has  heretofore  been  employed  to 
create  the  general  impression  that  the  policies  recommended  by  our  presi- 
dents for  people  in  the  savage  state  were  intended  to  be  applied  in  the  same 
degree  to  the  free  citizenship  of  our  country.  No  president  of  the  United 
States  has  yet  put  the  entire  American  people  on  a  plane  with  the  savages, 
and  least  of  all  did  Abraham  Lincoln  do  it.  That  has  been  done  only  by  the 
flourishing  intolerants  of  our  time.  Of  all  the  presidents,  Lincoln  stands 
foremost,  having  done  more  than  anyone  else  against  this  unwise  and  despotic 
theory  known  as  Prohibition.  He  voted  against  it,  and  he  cautioned  the 
people  against  the  employment  of  arrogant,  "impolitic"  methods,  such  as  this 
law  of  necessity  involves. 

Time  does  not  now  permit  of  more  than  brief  mention  of  few  of  the 
events  in  Lincoln's  career,  in  which  his  actions  clearly  reveal  his  broad- 
mindedness  on  the  use  of  liquor.  An  attempt  has  been  made,  therefore,  to 
single  out  a  few  instances  of  larger  significance,  such  as  can  most  conveni- 
ently be  verified  in  public  libraries.  Interesting  and  amusing  anecdotes,  of 
which  there  are  scores,  that  show  Lincoln's  human  side,  have  been  omitted 
from  this  discourse,  as  many  of  them  are  already  well  known.  Before 
closing  I  wish  to  call  attention  to  another  event  of  major  importance  in 
Lincoln's  public  life  that  should  aid  one  to  get  his  viewpoint  and  to  better 
understand   his  tolerant   attitude. 

During  the  progress  of  the  Civil  War,  the  federal  treasury  got  into  a  de- 
plorable condition,  threatening  the  successful  prosecution  of  the  conflict  to 
save  the  Union.  It  became  necessary  to  devise  some  method  of  getting  ready 
money  with  which  to  operate.  After  consideration  of  various  proposals, 
Congress  passed  the  Internal  Revenue  Act  of  1862,  which  law  was  approved 
and  signed  by  President  Lincoln.  Charles  T.  White  in  his  book,  "Lincoln 
and  Prohibition,"  admits  that  Lincoln  signed  this  bill — called  by  many 
prohibitionists,  the  "Infernal"  Revenue  Act.  This  law,  among  other  things, 
placed  a  tax  upon  the  liquor  industry,  and  is  therefore  said  to  have  been 


22  THE  FEDERAL  REVENUE  ACT  OF  1862 


very  reprehensible  in  Lincoln's  opinion.  There  is  now  a  scramble  among 
prohibitionists  to  explain  how  his  signing  this  law  came  about,  so  as  to 
remove  the  "shocking  disgrace"  from  his  name.  Mr.  White  explains  that 
Lincoln  signed  the  bill  with  "the  greatest  reluctancy — at  least,"  he  says,  "that 
is  the  inherent  probability."  Here,  again,  Mayor  Merwin  comes  to  the 
rescue.  He  happened  to  be  on  hand,  according  to  Mr.  White,  and  he  heard 
just  what  Lincoln  said,  as  he  "wrung  his  hands"  in  distress  and  remonstrated 
against  the  proposal.  "Never,"  President  Lincoln  is  said  to  have  shouted, 
"will  I  give  my  consent  to  that  infamy !  I  had  rather  lose  my  right  hand 
than  to  sign  a  document  that  shall  perpetuate  the  liquor  traffic !"  He  is 
described  as  having  pranced  about  his  office,  raving  like  a  madman.  One  can 
not  help  but  wonder  why  he  did  not  make  this  speech  and  demonstration 
before  Congress,  rather  than  to  Mr.  Merwin.  At  any  rate,  he  signed  the  bill, 
which  is  officially  recorded  and  which  it  would  be  futile  to  deny.  It  has  been 
deemed  better  to  make  another  explanation ;  so  that,  for  this  act  also,  Lincoln 
may  be  set  aright  in  the  eyes  of  prohibitionists.  After  he  had  signed  the  bill, 
Mayor  Merwin  again  happened  to  be  around — he  must  have  used  the  Presi- 
dent's office  for  a  hangout — and  he  heard  Lincoln  say,  Mr.  White  also  relates, 
that  "as  soon  as  the  exigencies  of  the  war  shall  pass  away  I  shall  turn  my 
attention  to  the  repeal  of  that  document."  In  the  light  of  these  facts  it  is 
apparent  why  Mayor  James  B.  Merwin  is  so  often  quoted  and  why  he  is 
considered  an  eminent  authority  on  Lincoln's  attitude  towards  prohibition. 

This  is  especially  significant,  and  no  explanation  by  anyone — not  even  by 
Mr.  Merwin — has  been  attempted :  There  is  no  record  of  Lincoln  ever  lend- 
ing his  influence  to  have  that  Act,  with  its  tax  on  liquors,  repealed.  The 
federal  treasury  was  replenished,  the  war  was  fought  to  its  conclusion,  the 
"exigencies"  passed  away,  the  Union  was  saved,  and  Abraham  Lincoln 
remained  President  until  the  war  was  over,  but  he  did  not  have  it  repealed, 
nor  is  there  any  official  record  that  he  ever  made  an  attempt,  or  even  a 
suggestion,  to  have  it  altered  or  repealed.  This  law— which  President 
Lincoln  approved  and  signed — remained  in  force,  with  minor  changes,  until 

less  than  nine  years  ago.1 

XX      XX      XX 

THE  organized  attempt  to  identify  the  Great  Emancipator  with  the 
prohibition  movement  will  not  generally  succeed.  Insofar  as  it  suc- 
ceeds, it  has  to  be  accomplished  through  misrepresentation.  Evidence  to 
confirm  the  true  situation  is  too  plentiful  and  convincing,  if  ever  brought 
before  the  people,  and  best  of  all,  it  is  official  and  incontestable.  What  has 
been  touched  upon  in  this  brief  discourse  is  by  no  means  all  that  might  be 
said  on  Lincoln's  attitude  towards  prohibition.  What  has  been  said,  however, 
has  documentary  sources  as  its  basis,  and  challenges  contradiction.  We  do 
not  need  to  rely  upon  unauthenticated  stories  and  hearsay  evidence.  Fur- 
thermore, most  of  the  people  prefer  to  have  the  data  as  found  in  official  rec- 
ords and  works  of  acknowledged  authorities,  even  though  such  data  may  not 
coincide  with  their  personal  views.  There  are  comparatively  few,  after  all, 
who  are  so  stubbornly  attached  to  the  doctrine  of  prohibition  as  to  close  their 
eyes  to  incontrovertible  facts,  and,  above  all,  adhere  to   fancies  based  on 


!For  verification  of  the  statements  in  connection  with  this  law,  the  reader  is  kindly- 
referred  to  The  Congressional  Globe  (now  the  Congressional  Record)  covering  the 
Thirty-seventh  Congress,  Second  Session.  This  law,  entitled  "An  Act  to  Provide 
Revenue  to  Support  the  Government  and  to  Pay  Interest  on  the  Public  Debt,"  was 
passed  by  the  Thirty-seventh  Congress  and  was  signed  by  President  Lincoln  on  July 
2nd,   1862.     See  Volume  59,  page  3088. 


IT  IS  BEST  TO  FACE  THE  FACTS  23 

prejudice.  Regardless  of  how  well  meaning  the  prohibition  leaders  may  be, 
and  how  firmly  they  may  believe  that  any  method  is  justifiable  that  aids  in 
attaining  a  certain  aim,  it  is  nevertheless  true  that  not  many  people  approve 
of  that  course,  once  they  find  out  they  are  being  duped.  In  time  they  will 
generally  discover  and  resent  that  their  confidence  has  been  betrayed,  and 
the  reaction  will  assuredly  be  felt. 

Unfortunately,  too  many  people  on  both  sides  of  this  so  highly  contro- 
versial question  refuse  to  consider  facts  which  do  not  tally  with  their  pre- 
conceived notions.  It  is  not  easy,  it  is  true,  to  consider  a  good  argument 
against  any  of  our  pet  notions  for  what  it  may  be  worth,  but  it  might  be 
easier  and  better  to  deal  with  a  bad  argument  and  to  rectify  it,  than  to  cope 
with  a  situation  resulting  from  good  counsel  that  has  gone  unheeded.  To 
merely  shut  one's  eyes  to  a  threatening  situation  is  dangerous.  The  ostrich 
was  never  considered  a  wise  bird.  It  might  be  better  to  face  the  facts  today, 
which  are  alarming,  than  to  face  the  conditions  that  are  inevitable  if  Lincoln's 
arguments  against  prohibition,  as  well  as  those  of  other  great  men,  should 
happen  to  be  well  founded. 

It  should  be  remembered  that  whenever  Lincoln  discussed  this  question, 
he  gave  no  thought  to — except  to  rebuke — the  method  of  promoting  its 
cause  by  force,  or  by  denunciation.  There  is  not  a  line  to  indicate  that  he 
believed  in  compelling  people  by  law  to  abstain  from  use  of  liquor.  His 
appeal  was  of  a  much  higher  order.  His  appeal  was  directed  to  the  intelli- 
gence of  the  individual;  to  exhort  him  to  moderation,  to  encourage  him  on 
the  way  to  regulate  properly  his  own  conduct — not  to  abstain,  necessarily, 
because  that  was  "exclusively  his  own  business,"  he  said,  but  to  remain 
sober,  which  alone  could  be  made  the  business  of  society.  To  him  drunken- 
ness was  a  loathsome  thing,  but  the  prohibitionists  have  yet  to  point  to  an 
instance  where  he  placed  any  blame  for  intemperance  on  wine,  or  on  any  other 
kind  of  intoxicating  beverage.  He  advocated  temperance,  and  he  stopped 
there.  One  can  not  believe  in  both  Temperance  and  Prohibition.  The  two 
are  poles  apart,  and  Lincoln  was  not  the  mental  acrobat  that  he  could  hold 
to  two  such  opposite  views.  Prohibitionists  do  not  believe  in  Temperance — 
it  is  not  extreme  enough.  It  is  just  as  difficult  for  a  person  who  holds  to 
Temperance  to  believe  in  Prohibition.  To  him  it  is  too  extreme.  Prohibi- 
tionists attempt  to  prevent  even  the  exercise  of  temperance — the  very  thing 
that  Lincoln  praised.  They  treat  Temperance  as  an  enemy,  which  they 
both  fear  and  mistrust,  and  seek  refuge  in  a  policy  that  goes  to  the  utmost 
limit.  That  policy — which  embodies  force  and  inevitably  breeds  ill  will — 
was  foreign  to  Lincoln's  conception  of  social  betterment.  It  puts  a  different 
complexion  on  the  entire  problem,  and  he  pointed  out  why  that  plan  breeds 
contention  and  hatred,  rather  than  co-operation  and  good  will.  He  defined 
the  difference  between  reasoning  with  a  person,  "as  erring  man  to  erring 
brother,"  to  exercise  his  intelligence ;  and,  on  the  contrary,  telling  that  person 
in  a  spirit  of  "denunciation" — prohibition — that  he  is  going  to  be  deprived 
of  liquor  and  be  compelled,  irrespective  of  his  personal  wishes,  to  abstain 
from  its  use  altogether.  And,  if  need  be,  the  officer's  club  and  gun  are  to 
be  brought  into  the  argument,  should  there  be  any  manly  resistance  to  this 
mandate.  Those  who  do  not  see  a  distinction  in  these  two  methods,  so 
clearly  pointed  out  by  Lincoln,  may  have  the  very  best  of  intentions,  but 
they  need  to  make  some  observations  on  the  peculiarities  of  human  nature. 
They  observe  no  essential  difference  between  men  and  fish.  The  prohibition 
law  thus  rests  upon  a  hopelessly  defective  foundation,  and  this  is  what 
Lincoln   repeatedly  emphasized  and   which  needs  emphasis   today.      Hence, 


24  IF  LINCOLN  WERE  LIVING  TODAY ? 

every  attempt  made  to  enforce  this  law  is  likewise  defective.  Enforcement 
measures  represent  the  same  low  degree  of  intelligence  as  the  law  itself.  It 
could  hardly  be  otherwise,  as  a  stream  does  not  rise  above  its  fountainhead. 
Such  measures  may  be  on  a  par  with  the  law  itself,  but  not  superior  to  it. 
Enforcing  prohibition,  therefore,  is  very  much  like  trying  to  defend  a  great 
lie  by  telling  other  lies.  All  of  the  attempts  to  make  this  law  a  success — 
such  as  poisoning  liquor  to  prevent  its  use,  and  all  the  other  detestable, 
nation-shaming  tricks  that  are  tried — are  on  an  equality  with  the  low  degree 
of  intelligence  embodied  in  the  law  itself,  and  they  must  fail,  just  as  each 
lie  to  support  the  original  lie  must  ultimately  fail.  Our  country's  experience 
with  prohibition  proves  that  this  comparison  fits  the  case.  To  tell  a  bit  of 
truth  about  the  original  lie  quickly  destroys  it,  as  a  sound  principle  applied 
to  prohibition  would  destroy  that  law  itself. 

«    »    xx 

REFORMED  drunkards,  as  well  as  other  overzealous  persons,  no  doubt 
mean  well,  but  laws  that  are  the  product  of  people  who  are  by  inclina- 
tion intemperate  foster  intemperance  among  those  to  whom  they  apply.  Like 
begets  like.  William  H.  Herndon,  John  B.  Gough  and  other  leading  prohi- 
bitionists agitated  for  a  law  to  govern  such  persons  as  themselves,  and  the 
success  of  their  kind  to  inflict  this  law  upon  the  general  public  was  as  unfor- 
tunate and  as  insensible  as  to  have  a  set  of  regulations  suitable  for  an  insane 
asylum  applied  to  an  educational  institution.  It  is  like  the  blind  leading 
those  who  can  see.  The  iniquity  must  be  rectified  at  some  time.  Prohibi- 
tion is  a  fit  law  for  drunkards  and  for  uncivilized  tribes.  Lincoln  opposed 
its  application  to  an  enlightened  citizenship.  He  never  advocated  the  adop- 
tion of  a  law  befitting  inebriates  and  other  irresponsibles,  for  the  regulation 
of  people  who  are  in  the  habit  and  in  the  soundness  of  mind  to  well  regulate 
their  own  conduct.  Nor  would  he  favor  such  a  law  today.  He  would  have 
to  reverse  his  position  on  this  question,  and  there  is  no  reasonable  basis  for 
the  claim  that  he  would  do  so.  Furthermore,  his  stand  taken  more  than 
three-quarters  of  a  century  ago,  when  he  delivered  the  address  to  which  we 
have  referred,  is  a  position  he  could  not  change  today — in  the  light  of  our 
country's  experience  with  prohibition.  Again,  Lincoln  had  too  much  respect 
for  his  fellow  citizens  to  suggest  imposing  upon  them  such  an  insulting  law 
as  even  chiefs  of  old  would  not  have  imposed  upon  their  vassals.  He  was 
tempted  more  than  others ;  to  seek  the  adoption  of  such  a  law  for  the  control 
of  his  own  partner,  Mr.  Herndon,  a  habitual  drunkard — still  he  would  not 
even  have  that.  Herndon  wanted  such  a  law  for  Lincoln,  however.  There 
we  have  an  example  of  prohibition  audacity.  The  supreme  insolence  of 
interfering  with  a  temperate  and  intelligent  citizen  in  his  habits  of  food  and 
drink,  as  if  he  were  a  ward  in  a  public  institution  for  the  feeble-minded ! 
And  to  associate  Lincoln  with  this  spiteful,  contemptible  stool-pigeon  system 
we  call  "prohibition H  Such  a  slanderous  accusation!  If  Abraham  Lincoln 
were  living  today  it  is  not  likely  that  he  would  dodge  the  issue,  but  oppose 
prohibition  as  he  did  in  his  own  time,  and  draw  down  upon  himself  the  same 
venomous  abuse  which  is  now  being  heaped  upon  leading  men  who  raise 
their  voice  against  this  law. 

The  prohibition  law  is  doomed  to  fall — like  a  house  built  on  the  sand.  It 
may  creak  and  totter  for  awhile,  but  its  fall  is  as  certain  as  that  the  sun 
will  rise  tomorrow  morning.  None  of  the  truly  great  has  ever  sought  to 
justify  the  principle  this  law  embodies — which  is  the  important  thing.  Minor 
matters  can  be  altered,  but  not  that.     Good  intentions,  unless  based  upon 


THE  CRUX  OF  THE  TEMPERANCE  PROBLEM         25 

right  principles,  mean  little  in  this  essentially  practical  world.  The  folly  of 
framing  such  illusory  notions  into  law  has  now  been  amply  demonstrated, 
as  prohibition  is  bearing  its  abundant  fruit — corruption,  graft,  hypocrisy ! 
True  reform  does  not  permit  itself  to  be  hurried  by  such  extreme  measures. 
The  government  may  rush  the  completion  of  a  building,  canal  or  railway,  but 
when  it  applies  the  same  "efficiency"  to  reform  it  is  not  only  impotent  but 
demoralizing.  Social  progress  is  a  matter  of  slow  degrees,  which  revolts 
and  causes  trouble  when  subjected  to  any  mechanical  process.  How  true 
the  old  proverb,  "the  mills  of  the  gods  grind  slowly!"  Prohibitionists 
assume  that  there  is  a  short-cut  route  to  the  Millennium.  Their  theory  is  not 
a  reform!  in  the  true  meaning  of  the  word,  even  though  it  accomplished  its 
very  object,  because  its  plan  is  to  hastily  crush  its  way  by  force,  rather  than 
take  time  to  re-form.  To  this  Lincoln  called  attention,  and  he  pointed  out 
how  contemptible  that  element  of  "force"  is,  when  applied  to  the  purpose 
of  bettering  the  customs  of  a  people.  It  fosters  a  defiant  spirit,  he  warned. 
He  pointed  to  the  eternal  truth  that  the  element  of  force  has  no  place  in 
moral  advancement,  and  he  held  derision  towards  any  plan  that  succeeds  only 
insofar  as  it  may  overawe  a  cowardly  spirit  of  intimidation.  Prohibition, 
according  to  his  conception,  can  not  be  successfully  forced  down  upon  us 
unless  we  have  become  a  nation  of  supine  and  sissified  manhood.  And  then 
it  was  the  militant  methods  of  the  theorizers  Lincoln  objected  to,  rather  than 
their  aim.  He  might  have  liked  to  see  all  the  liquor  wiped  off  the  face  of 
the  earth.  Assuredly,  anyone  who  thinks  that  he  opposed  prohibition  in 
defense  of  booze,  or  as  a  friend  of  the  "liquor  traffic,"  has  completely  failed 
to  grasp  the  principal,  the  essential  idea.  The  merits  or  the  demerits  of  liquor 
he  held  immaterial  and  refused  to  debate.  The  problem  involved  greater 
things  in  his  estimation  than  his  own  or  others'  taste  for  intoxicants.  It  is 
strange  that  it  is  so  difficult  to  dissociate  this  question  from  the  purely  liquor 
or  "wet  and  dry"  standpoint,  as  if  that  were  the  main  factor,  when  it  lias  in 
reality  no  serious  bearing  on  the  problem.  Lincoln,  like  many  others,  looked 
upon  this  question  in  the  light  that  the  elimination  of  spirits  might  be  theoret- 
ically right,  but  he  pointed  out  earnestly  that  the  prohibition  method  is  a 
dead-wrong  way  to  proceed,  regardless  of  whether  the  question  centers  about 
liquor  or  anything  else.  This  is  the  crux  of  the  whole  problem,  yet  we  have 
just  closed  a  campaign  that  has  in  a  sense  been  nation-wide,  without  the  Lin- 
colnian  view  ever  being  stressed.  The  discussion  of  the  original  subject  has 
degenerated  from  the  higher  plane  of  "temperance  or  intemperance,"  to  the 
low,  the  ignoble  wrangle  over  "liquor  or  no  liquor."  We  are  gradually 
losing  sight  of  the  finer  things,  that  center  about  the  advocacy  of  true  tem- 
perance, and  are  obliged  under  this  law  to  deal  with  the  question  in  its  vulgar 
aspects  to  the  exclusion  of  everything  else.  So  while  it  was  one  of  the  finest 
in  behalf  of  Temperance,  Lincoln's  address  would  be  out  of  order  today. 
What  uproar  would  there  not  be  among  our  leading  prohibitionists  if  he 
were  to  come  back  and  repeat  what  he  said  to  the  Washingtonians  in  1842, 
and  declare,  as  he  did  then,  that  to  drink  liquor  "is  exclusively  one's  own 
business !"  He  could  not  deliver  his  eloquent  and  masterful  exhortations 
for  true  temperance  without  teaching  disobedience  to  the  Eighteenth  Amend- 
ment. And  it  is  certain  that  he  would  not  permit  himself  to  stoop  to  the 
brutalities  and  to  the  deceptive,  petty  trickery  that  must  accompany  both  great 
and  small  attempts  at  enforcement  of  this  law.  Prohibition  is  out  of  har- 
mony with  his  spirit.  Let  us  not  desecrate  his  memory  by  saying  that  he 
would  approve  of  poison  liquor  or  padlock!  His  approach  to  the  problem 
was  on  a  higher,  a  nobler  plane.    He  appealed  to  the  intelligence  of  the  indi- 


26  OUR  ACCEPTABLE  GUIDE 

vidual  who  was  intemperate  in  his  habits,  throwing  into  his  entreaties  the 
great  power  of  his  love  and  personality.  That,  friends,  after  all,  is  what 
melts  the  hearts  of  men.  Prohibitionists  have  thrown  love  to  the  four 
winds,  and  wield  the  club  instead ;  consuming  with  bitterness,  thinking  they 
are  being  actuated  by  mercy.  They  say  they  want  to  continue  to  use  gentle 
persuasion,  but  insist  on  reserving  the  right  to  employ  more  rigorous  means. 
In  other  words,  they  wish  to  employ  both  love  and  the  club,  to  make  doubly 
sure  of  our  salvation.  This  would  seem  to  be  very  sweet  of  them,  but  if 
they  had  the  one  in  such  copious  measure  they  would  loathe  the  other.  Lin- 
coln viewed  with  repugnance  the  fury  of  club-wielding  reformers.  He 
abhorred  everything  arbitrary  and  tyrannical.  He  rebuked  the  application  of 
force  in  matters  of  this  nature,  and  admonished  against  dealing  unkindly  "if 
you. would  win  a  man  to  your  cause."  Still,  today,  when  the  prohibitionists  do 
not  discuss  in  military  terms  how  to  stop  all  use  of  liquor,  they  indulge  in 
railing  invectives  against  everyone  who  does  not  see  the  question  in  their 
own  light.  Both  of  these  methods  are  out  of  harmony  with  Lincoln's  way 
of  dealing  with  this  problem.  We  have  strayed  far  from  his  course,  and 
we  have  reduced  this  controversy  to  the  low  level  of  a  squabble.  Now,  a 
permanent  solution  can  come  about  best  and  quickest  by  grasping  the  Lin- 
colnian  view  of  the  principles  that  are  involved,  rather  than  by  relying  on 
strategic  maneuvering  of  political  forces.  It  is  a  task  for  all  friends  of  our 
country  as  one  group  working  in  harmony — not  as  opposing  groups,  one  to 
subdue  the  other.  What  is  now  in  order  above  everything  else — in  view  of 
the  misleading  literature  which  has  flooded  the  country — is  more  investigation 
on  the  part  of  the  individual  and  less  of  confiding  in  the  output  of  propaganda 
organizations  that  hesitated  at  nothing  in  getting  this  law  foistevl  upon  us 
and  now,  despite  the  law's  dismal  failure,  are  as  unscrupulously  seeking  its 
perpetuation.  We  need  less  of  "investigating"  each  other,  and  more  of 
talking  things  over  in  friendly  conventions ;  more  co-operation,  less  misrep- 
resentation. The  people  will  yet  settle  this  question  in  a  creditable  manner, 
once  the  influence  of  professional  reformers  is  broken  and  the  campaign 
raised  to  a  higher  plane,  worthy  of  Lincoln's  conceptions  and  ideals.  We 
must,  first  of  all,  be  friends.  To  hold  opposite  views  and  still  be  friends  is 
a  mark  of  intelligence.  After  these  years  of  prohibition,  temperance  is  to 
be  restored — for  prohibition  has  worked  "great  injury  to  the  cause  of  tem- 
perance." It  must  be  done  by  the  calm  and  considerate,  who  form  the  ma- 
jority of  our  citizenship,  rather  than  continue  to  be  delegated  to  a  handful 
of  hysterical  extremists.  And  if  this  unwise  law  was  put  across  by  trickery, 
that  does  not  justify  its  defeat  by  trickery.  Such  a  solution  is  not  lasting. 
If  the  change  does  not  come  about  as  the  result  of  something  more  funda- 
mental than  the  equivalent  of  brute  force  or  political  chicanery,  the  work  is 
all  in  vain.  Of  all  men,  Abraham  Lincoln  may  be  accepted  as  our  guide, 
both  in  the  solution  of  this  immediate  problem  and  in  our  future  advocacy  of 
true  temperance.  He  threw  the  most  illuminating  light  upon  this  question, 
and  the  course  he  pointed  out  shames  the  policeman's  club  in  a  campaign  of 
any  worthy  cause.  If  "persuasion — kind,  unassuming  persuasion" — fails, 
we  may  rest  assured  that  the  greatest  weapon  in  our  possession  has  failed, 
and  when  Abraham  Lincoln  had  employed  that  weapon  he  was  satisfied  that 
he  had  accomplished  all  that  is  humanly  possible  to  accomplish,  and  no  one 
will  ever  do  more. 


I 


UNIVERSITY  OF  ILLINOIS-URBANA 

973  7L63B7D22L  C001 

LINCOLN'S  ATTITUDE  TOWARDS  PROHIBITION  N 


3  0112  031799866 


